JVSOf.'l  l\  E  V  E  R  F.  INS  B 


FIRST  ARCHBISHOP  OF 


RK 


Jj^  /-'  ^ 


/L 


^  4* 


r^y  c*g^_ 

:  ^  <r^g^f 


/* 


( 


\:r  <■'■ 


v 


Date  Due 


V  - 


MOST  REVEREND 

JOHN  HUGHES, 

✓ 

3ffcst  Brcbbtobop  of  flew  H?orfL 


BY 

Right  Rev.  HENRY  A.  BRANN,  D.  D., 

Rector  of  St.  Agnes’  Church. 


t 


r 


223 


Second  editio 


NEW-YO 

East,  45TH  St 


1912 


» 


6X 
11  OS 

,H19 

61 

mh 


COPYRIGHT 

ASSIGNED  BY  THE  AUTHOR 
TO  THE 

FRANCISCAN  MISSIONARIES  OF  MARY 

AND 

RECORDED  IN  WASHINGTON  D.  C. 
JAN.  l6TH,  A.  D.  19 1 1. 


'•V 


' 

■*  1* 


•  • 


JCT/  19M 

BOSTOrf  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 


I 


The  Most  Reverend 


Michael  augustine  corrigan,  d.d 

THE  WORTHY  SUCCESSOR  OF  THE  GREAT 
AMERICAN  ARCHBISHOP, 


C&I5  JBorfc  ijj  affectionate*?  ^e&icateb 


,  ,  •  _  L  ’  ,  '  r  ; 

■  '  ■  -  -  ••  vt  1  ■  rflgV'H 

V  •  ■  "I  -  ,  ■  '  '  !'  y 1  ‘  ■  '  '}  . 


.  V-  11 

V  ■  '  _■  '• 

- 

■ .  7  >:  1 .  .  :  ■  7 


■-/ '  • 


' 

/ 


!  t.  i  < 


■■  !’  •  \ 


,  ,v  <3 


•'  ! 

i 


A  • 


. 


. 


-  ,  '  '  '  ■  ,  ' 

■  '  ' 

W  '  '  / 

V  '  ■  ■  ' 


■  ’ 

.  ■  1 

\  <  .  ■;  ■-  ' 

v  ' 

■ia  ,  v  :<  •  . 

I 


'  ,  ■  ' 


•  » 


.‘I  • 


* 


*■&  ■'  -  ;■  '  ■  ,  ■  ■ 
,1  . 

•  '  \  .y  '■ 

v  ■  '  '  l  • 

1  v  ; 
y  '  1  < .  ■  ‘  ■  .  .  -  *  V 

ifL  -  '  .  . 


' 


/ 


;  l 


■  '  V  • 

■f>  .  ,  \ 


-A'  m'-v  ;•  ■ 

U  :  v.'  ;Vo 

&>....■*  jrt  -- 


••••  -  '  I  !■  ■' 

t  .,V-  *  -  .  .  -  . 


'  "  1  ► 


‘  v!  V'’  r  "  ■ 

,V  ,■  , 

iy  ,  y ’■  '  ,  ... 

■  ■  \ 


/ 

) 


M-  . '  •'  H 


•  i  • 


' /  *  -  '  w  ' 

V  .  - 


r".:>  ’  '  1 


,\1f 1 


:&;{:*  '  ■  '  • 

v  ■ 


f  „ 
.  t 


l !».  ' 


■ 

... 


' 

'-  •  A  .M1. 


i  r  )  ■  v. 

■'  '•  f  V  - 

y,  ■;  ■  ; 


}'tr-  v;-‘ 

.  -  •  - , 


•  » 


4  ^ 


)  /. 


A  /  '  »'  '  , 

’  ’/'  *  ,  ■  '  ‘  ' 

. 


•ri«( 1 


it  P  ' 

r.  j  >  • 


,  -  f. 


•  J 


PREFACE 

OF  THE  FIRST  EDITION 


The  Psalmist  tells  us  that  the  memory  of 
the  just  shall  never  die.  Archbishop  Hughes’s 
memory  should  therefore  ever  survive ;  for  he 
was  certainly  a  just  man,  a  faithful  Christian, 
and  a  great  patriot.  The  author  has  tried  to 
show  these  qualities  in  this  brief  record  of  the 
prelate’s  deeds.  But  the  author  feels  that  he 
has  drawn  only  a  miniature,  instead  of  a  full- 
sized  portrait  of  a  great  personality  that  filled 
the  public  eye  for  so  many  years  in  our  city, 
State,  and  country,  jstill  the  features  and  char¬ 
acter  were  so  striking  that  even  an  imperfect 
picture  will  portray  the  man  and  the  bishop. 
Those  who  desire  to  know  fuller  details  and  in¬ 
cidents  of  his  life,  can  consult  the  large  work  of 


vi; 


PREFACE. 


Mr.  Hassard,  or  the  prelate’s  Complete  Works, 
edited  by  Lawrence  Kehoe.1 

For  many  of  the  facts  stated  in  this  book,  the 
author  is  indebted  to  these  standard  works,  as 
well  as  to  private  sources.  He  hopes,  in  con¬ 
clusion,  that  his  readers  after  perusing  these 
pages  will  have  as  much  admiration  as  himself 
for  the  hero  of  his  story. 

1  Hassard’s  “Life  of  Archbishop  Hughes  ”  is  published  by 
Appleton  ;  Mr.  Kehoe’s  compilation  by  the  Catholic  Publica¬ 
tion  Society,  New  York.' 


PREFACE 


TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION 


This  life  of  Archbishop  Hughes  was  written 
at  the  request  of  the  publishers  Dode,  Mead 
and  Co  :  who  intended  to  be  one  of  their  popu¬ 
lar  series  of  the  «  Makers  of  America*.  The  size 
of  the  book  was  limited  not  by  the  nature  of 
the  subject,  but  by  the  nature  of  the  series. 

After  some  time,  the  copyright  was  transferred 
by  the  publishers  to  the  author,  who  now  trans¬ 
fers  it  to  the  zealous  Franciscan  Missionary  Sis¬ 
ters  of  Mary.  They  are  now  the  exclusive  owners 
of  the  book  and  will  use  whatever  profit  may 
be  derived  from  its  sale  for  the  benefit  of  their 
works  of  charity  in  New  York  and  elsewhere. 

It  would  be  easy,  but  it  has  been  deemed 
\  unwise  to  make  the  volume  larger.  It  is  so  small 


that  it  may  be  easily  read.  This  and  the  nature 
of  the  theme  ought  to  make  it  popular;.  Every 
American  Catholic  and  especially  every  Amer¬ 
ican  Catholic  child  should  know  the  story  of 
our  great  fighting  Archbishop,  the  fearless  and 
able  champion  of  Catholic  principles  and  rights 
at  a  time  when  Catholics  were  poor  and  few  in 
number,  struggling  to  build  up  Catholic  institu- 

1 

tions  and  propagate  the  Faith  of  Christ  in  face 
of  hostile  wealth  and  of  the  inherited  bigotry  of 
sectarianism. 

Henry  A.  Brann,  d.  d. 
Rector  of  St.  Agnes’  Church,. 
New  York. 

January  ist,  1911. 


\ 


I 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Page 

His  Birth  and  Early  Education . 13 

CHAPTER  II. 

His  Early  Struggles  in  America.  —  Works  as  a  Day- 
Labourer. —  Enters  Mount  St.  Mary’s  Seminary, 
and  has  his  First  Controversy . 23 

CHAPTER  III. 

He  is  ordained  a  Priest,  becomes  Rector  of  a  Parish, 
and  encounters  the  Trustee  System  in  Philadel¬ 
phia  . 32 

CHAPTER  IV. 

His  Interest  in  Irish  Catholic  Emancipation.  —  Con¬ 
troversy  with  Doctor  Delancey.  —  His  Letters  to 
“The  Protestant” . .42 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Breckenridge  Controversy.  —  Father  Hughes 
proposed  for  Bishop  of  Cincinnati . 49 


/ 


x  CONTENTS. 

\ 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Page 

He  is  made  Coadjutor  to  the  Bishop  of  New  York  .  55 

CHAPTER  VII. 

He  goes  to  Europe.  —  His  Interview  with  O’Connell. 

—  His  Great  Controversy  on  the  School  Question.  65 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Close  of  the  School  Controversy . 80 

CHAPTER  IX. 

First  Diocesan  Synod  of  New  York.  —  The  Contro¬ 
versy  with  David  Hale  and  the  Trustees  of  St. 
Louis  Church,  Buffalo.  —  Bishop  McCloskey 
appointed  Coadjutor.  —  The  Native  American 
Excitement,  and  Mayor  Harper . 88 

CHAPTER  X. 

He  visits  Europe  in  the  Interest  of  Education.  —  His 
Political  Opinions.  —  Organization  of  the  Sisters 
of  Charity  in  his  Diocese.  —  Sympathy  with  the 
Irish  Patriots  of  1848.  —  His  Controversy  with 
“  Kirwan  ”  .  . . .  100 


CHAPTER  XI. 

He  is  made  an  Archbishop.  —  The  Erection  of  Now 
Sees.  —  The  Know-Nothing  Movement  of  1854. 

—  The  first  Provincial  Council  of  New  York. — 
Controversy  with  Erastus  Brooks.  —  The  Catholic 

Vote  .  .  . . .  •  •  •  *  112 


CONTENTS. 


XI 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Page 

His  Hard  Work  from  1855  to  1858.  —  His  Visit  to 
Newfoundland.  —  Attacks  on  his  Administration 
of  the  Diocese.  —  His  Defence.  —  Apologia  pro 
vita  Sua . 127 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Archbishop  Hughes  as  a  Poet . 141 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

His  Patriotism.  —  His  Assistance  to  the  Government 
during  our  Civil  War.  —  His  Mission  to  Europe 
to  help  the  Cause  of  the  United  States.  —  Inter 
view  with  Napoleon  III.  —  Return  to  New  York. 

—  His  Last  Sermon.  —  The  Draft-Riots.  —  His 
Speech  to  the  Mob.  —  His  Last  Sickness  and 
Death . .  154 


' 

v  -  i  •'  ‘  V— .  -  .  ■  ' 

.  '  I  -  ?  '  v  '  .  ,  \  ■ 

■  •  .  - 1 

vv,  r  ■  ■  ■  , 


>: 

. 


■ 

>  >  -f  J 

h  ■ 


rv  v.  ■ '  • 

• 

-  -V^'  ttf’,  ’  ’  *  1  '  '  . 

v', 

'  vr"  ‘  I  : ' 

,  Y,  .  .  . 

‘■V.  ' ,  -  •  ■  a 

'■  .  v  1  ■  ■:  ,  •  ■ 

;l  .  .  ■  I  ■  ,  .  •  1 

l'C  Vv"  '  '  '  ‘I  .  ' 

■ 

V',:  :  "v  .  '  • 

„  -  '  ■  '  .. 
'  .  '  '  '  ,  ,  V 

« 

!  i  .. 

^  •• 

%  V  -  • 

1 

.  1  ■.  ■  ,  •  .  • 


r 


■  ■  '  V  |  ,  .  , '  , 

-A 

’  •  •  i  ■  > 


I  «. 


\\ 


i 


U  -  1  '  ,  A  • 

■■  r, 

,  , 

■ 

,  .  '  ■  •  •  ’ 

1 

UWXr'*.  *< 


'  .  ■:  ;  . 


v 


\  i 

-■■■  :  v  '  '  .. 

.  ••/  ,  1  ..  ><: 
YVVv  v  ’•  .  / 

.  • '  <  ■.  r 


‘  ^  ’ 

* 


* 


a  .  .  ...  •  —  va,'.  i 

■  •  . 

!>■  -  „B 

i /'■  ,■  .  ,  '■  /' 

. 

;  -  ■  .  '  .  1  i  \  '  ;•  -i . 

■  ■<  ,  .  '  ,  ■  ■  - 

*■  ■■  ■  . .. 


■  t 


V"  '  ■  ■  "  ■■ 

- »'  ' 

•  *  ’  ■  • 1  '  * 


1  *  r  / 


v. 


V.  >  .  •  •  '  N 

-  I  •  .  " 

- 

'  ‘  ‘  ■ ,  ■  f 

'  ,  .  .  '  ;.|J| 


JOHN 


HUGHES. 


»  '  — 

CHAPTER  I. 

His  Birth  and  Early  Education. 

'  * 

It  is  a  common  saying  that  “  the  child  is  father  to 
the  man ;  ”  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  physical  and 
social  environment  of  youth  has  much  to  do  with  the 
formation  of  character  and  with  the  development  of 
talent.  This  is  especially  the  case  of  John  Hughes, 
the  great  Catholic  American  patriot,  who  was  the  first 
archbishop  of  New  York.  The  place,  the  time,  the 
influences  that  surrounded  his  youth,  helped  to  make 
him  a  strong  character,  a  foe  of  oppression,  and  an 
ardent  lover  of  American  institutions. 

He  was  born  in  the  North  of  Ireland,  in  the  County 
of  Tyrone,  in  the  little  village  of  Annaloghan,  on  the 
24th  of  June,  1797.  His  father  was  Patrick  Hughes, 
and  his  mother  Margaret  McKenna.  They  were  the 
parents  of  seven  children,  of  whom  John  was  the 
third.  Patrick  and  his  wife  were  typical  Irish  peasants 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  —  poor,  God-fearing,  and  in- 


14 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


dustrious.  Their  neighbours  were  of  different  creeds* 
and  as  is  usual  in  the  province  of  Ulster,  many  of 
those  who  were  Protestants  belonged  to  the  Orange 
secret  societies,  which  were  pledged  to  public  and  to 
private  hostility  to  Roman  Catholics.  The  penal  laws 
against  them  were  in  full  force  ;  and  bitter  controver¬ 
sies  were  waged  between  the  opposing  factions.  Some 
of  the  Catholics  were  no  better  than  the  Orangemen. 
The  “  Ribbonmen,”  a  secret  organization  exclusively 
composed  of  so-called  Catholics,  were  always  ready 
to  engage  in  physical  conflict  with  the  ever-belligerent 
Orange  lodges.  There  was  a  fundamental  difference, 
however,  between  the  manner  in  which  the  clergy  of 
the  different  denominations  treated  those  secret  socie¬ 
ties  ;  for  while  the  Catholic  priests  denounced  “  the 
Ribbonmen,”  and  tried  to  prevent  their  flocks  from 
becoming  affiliated  to  them,  the  Protestant  clergy 
openly  favoured  the  Orangemen,  extolled  them  from 
the  pulpit,  as  some  of  them  still  do,  and  were  often 
members  of  the  Orange  lodges.  This  gave  them  great 
power  in  the  North  of  Ireland,  where  they  formed 
an  English  garrison.  They  were  strongly  in  favour  of 
maintaining  the  penal  laws,  which  were  not  erased 
from  the  English  statute-books  until  1829.  In  that 
year  O’Connell  won  Catholic  emancipation.  The 
reader  may  be  able  to  judge  of  the  influences  sur¬ 
rounding  young  Hughes’s  life,  by  perusing  some  of  the 
laws  under  which  Irish  Catholics  were  then  living. 

t  •  . 


HIS  BIRTH  AND  EARLY  EDUCATION.  1 5 


and  under  some  of  which  they  still  live  in  the  ever- 
oppressed  Island. 

“No  Catholic  could  settle  a  jointure  on  any  Catholic 
wife,  or  charge  his  lands  with  any  provision  for  his 
daughters,  or  dispose  by  will  of  his  landed  property.” 

“  If  the  wife  of  a  Catholic  declared  herself  a  Protes¬ 
tant,  the  law  enabled  her  not  only  to  compel  her  hus¬ 
band  to  give  her  a  separate  maintenance,  but  to  trans¬ 
fer  to  her  the  custody  and  guardianship  of  all  their 
children.!’ 

“  If  the  eldest  son  of  a  Catholic  father  at  any  age,  how¬ 
ever  young,  declared  himself  a  Protestant,  he  thereby 
made  his  father  strict  tenant  for  life,  deprived  the  father 
of  all  power  to  sell  or  dispose  of  his  estate ;  and  such 
Protestant  son  became  entitled  to  the  absolute  dominion 
and  ownership  of  the  estate.” 

“  If  any  Catholic  purchased  for  money  any  estate  in 
land,  any  Protestant  was  empowered  by  law  to  take  away 
that  estate  from  the  Catholic,  and  to  enjoy  it  without 
paying  one  shilling  of  the  purchase-money.” 

“  If  any  Catholic  had  a  horse  worth  more  than  five 
pounds,  any  Protestant  tendering  five  pounds  to  the  Cath¬ 
olic  owner  was  by  law  entitled  to  take  the  horse,  though 
worth  fifty  or  one  hundred  pounds  or  more,  and  to  keep 
it  as  his  own.” 

“  If  any  Catholic,  being  the  owner  of  a  horse  worth 
more  than  five  pounds,  concealed  his  horse  from  any 
Protestant,  the  Catholic,  for  the  crime  of  concealing  his 
own  horse,  was  liable  to  be  punished  by  an  imprisonment 
of  three  months,  and  a  fine  of  three  times  the  value  of 
the  horse,  whatever  that  might  be.” 


i6 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


'  * 


“  If  a  Catholic  kept  school  or  taught  any  person,  Pro* 
testant  or  Catholic,  any  species  of  literature  or  science, 
such  teacher  was  for  the  crime  of  teaching  punishable  by 
law  by  banishment ;  and  if  he  returned  from  banishment, 
he  was  subject  to  be  hanged  as  a  felon.” 

“  If  a  Catholic,  whether  a  child  or  adult,  attended  in 
Ireland  a  school  kept  by  a  Catholic,  such  Catholic,  al¬ 
though  a  child  in  its  early  infancy,  incurred  a  forfeiture 
of  all  its  property,  present  or  future.” 

These  penal  laws  rendered  “  every  Catholic  incapa¬ 
ble  of  holding  a  commission  in  the  army  or  navy, 
or  even  to  be  a  private  soldier,  unless  he  solemnly 
abjured  his  religion.” 

“  The  Catholic  could  hold  no  office  or  emolument  in  the 
State.  He  could  not  be  a  judge,  grand-juror,  sheriff,  sale- 
sheriff,  master  in  Chancery,  barrister,  attorney,  agent,  or 
solicitor,  nor  even  a  gamekeeper  to  a  private  gentleman. 
To  teach  the  Catholic  religion  was  a  transportable  felony ; 
to  convert  a  Protestant  was  a  capital  offence,  punishable 
as  an  act  of  treason.” 

“  To  be  a  Catholic  archbishop  or  bishop,  or  to  exercise 
any  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  whatsoever  in  the  Catholic 
Church  in  Ireland,  was  punishable  by  transportation ;  to 
return  from  such  transportation  was  an  act  of  high  treason, 
punishable  by  being  hanged,  embowelled  alive,  and  after¬ 
wards  quartered.” 

At  one  time  the  government  offered  a  reward  of  five 
pounds  for  the  head  of  a  Catholic  priest.1 

1  “  Memoir  on  Ireland,  Native  and  Saxon,”  addressed  to  the 
Queen  by  Daniel  O’Connell,  A.  D.  1843. 


HIS  BIRTH  AND  EARLY  EDUCATION.  I  7 


Such  were  some  of  the  laws  enacted  by  an  English 
parliament  after  the  breaking  of  the  Treaty  of  Limerick ; 
and  although  there  was  some  relaxation  of  their  rigour 
in  1775,  when  the  American  colonies  revolted,  and 
again  in  1782,  during  the  war  between  England  and 
France,  when  a  French  fleet  was  in  the  English  Channel 
and  frightened  the  English  government,  the  Catholic 
majority  in  Ireland  had  no  rights  which  the  Protes¬ 
tant  minority  felt  bound  to  respect.  This  minority  was 
chiefly  made  up  of  the  children  of  the  Scotch  and 
English  pauper  emigrants  whom  James  I,  and  later 
English  sovereigns  had  imported  into  the  province 
of  Ulster,  and  settled  on  the  confiscated  lands  of  the 
exiled  Catholic  Chieftains  O’Donnell  and  O’Neill. 

Controversies  between  Catholics  and  Protestants 
were  bitter  and  fierce  around  the  home  of  young 
Hughes.  Bloody  faction  fights  between  “  Ribbon- 
men”  and  “Orangemen”  were  common;  and  in  the 
contentions,  treachery  and  assassination  were  more 
frequent  than  open  warfare. 

The  archbishop  used  to  tell  that,  when  he  was  a 
boy,  he  was  waylaid  once  by  a  band  of  “  Orange¬ 
men,”  who  pointed  five  bayonets  at  his  breast, 
so  that  he  thought  his  hour  had  come.  How¬ 
ever,  when  he  told  them  his  name,  they  let  him  go, 
saying,  “We  know  his  father.”  His  father  was  a 
quiet  man  who,  although  a  strong  defender  of  his 
religion,  would  never  associate  with  the  “  Ribbon  ” 


2 


i8 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


factions,  the  heads  of  which  were  often  the  paid  spies 
of  a  government  that  fomented  divisions  among  the 
Irish  so  as  to  govern  them  more  easily.  The  “  Orange¬ 
men”  respected  the  Hughes  family  for  their  peace¬ 
able  and  inoffensive  habits.  He  used  also  to  tell,  with 
bitterness,  that  when  one  of  his  sisters  died,  the  priest 
was  not  allowed  to  enter  the  cemetery  to  bless  the 
grave.  The  minister  of  the  Catholic  religion  had  to 
remain  outside  the  gate  of  the  graveyard,  for  a  penal 
law  forbade  him  to  enter  it.  This  incident  deeply 
embittered  the  mind  of  young  Hughes  against  the 
oppressor  of  his  creed  and  country. 

At  an  early  age  he  was  sent  to  a  school  in  a  place 
called  Augher,  and  afterward  to  another  in  Auchnac- 
loy  near  Annaloghan.  He  learned  rapidly  all  that 
the  elementary  schools  of  that  time  and  neighbourhood 
could  teach;  for  he  was  passionately  fond  of  books 
and  study.  He  read  the  popular  controversies  of  the 
day,  and  often  listened  to  the  oral  controversies  on 
religion  which  were  then  frequent  in  every  town  in 
the  North  of  Ireland.  Every  village  had  its  lay- 
theologian,  its  champion  of  Protestantism,  and  its 
champion  of  the  old  church.  The  faith  of  these 
theologians  was  often  much  stronger  than  their  good 
works.  Nor  was  the  theology  very  orthodox  or 
charitable  on  either  side.  In  it  epithets  were  often 
stronger  than  arguments.  John  was  also  fond  of 
athletic  sports.  He  had  a  strong  constitution  and 


\ 


HIS  BIRTH  AND  EARLY  EDUCATION 


19 


a  bright,  lively  disposition.  In  this  respect,  too,  he  was 
influenced  by  the  physical  surroundings  of  the  time 
and  place.  The  climate  of  Ireland  is  never  very 
cold  nor  very  hot,  and  although  moist,  it  does  not 
change  suddenly.  The  Irish  peasant  of  the  period 
before  the  famine,  ate  plain  wholesome  food,  and 
lived  much  in  the  open  air.  His  food  was  oatmeal, 
milk,  potatoes,  and  wheaten  bread  with  fresh  butter. 
Fresh  meat  was  seldom  used  except  on  great  occa¬ 
sions,  as  at  Christmas,  at  Easter,  or  on  the  feast  of 
Saint  Patrick ;  even  bacon  and  poultry  were  eaten 
only  on  Sunday.  Irish  luxuries  went  abroad  to  Eng¬ 
land,  while  only  the  necessaries  of  life  remained  at 
home. 

With  such  diet,  steady  habits,  and  morality,  the 
Irish  peasants  became  the  strongest  race  in  Europe. 
The  Irish  soldiers  who  left  Ireland  after  the  Treaty 
of  Limerick,  were  recognized  as  the  finest  body  of 
men  in  the  armies  of  the  Continent.  John  Hughes, 
begotten  of  such  chaste  and  vigorous  stock,  grew  up 
amid  such  surroundings.  He  was  a  strong,  sturdy 
boy,  fond  of  work,  fond  of  self-improvement,  and 
fond  of  religion.  He  early  showed  an  inclination  to 
become  a  priest ;  but  his  parents  were  too  poor  to 
enable  him  to  carry  out  his  desire.  Many  a  time 
when  he  was  working  on  his  father’s  little  farm,  he 
would  throw  down  the  rake  or  spade  in  the  field, 
kneel  behind  a  hay-stack,  and,  as  he  said  himself, 


20 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


afterward  “  beg  God  and  the  Blessed  Virgin  to  let  me 
become  a  priest.”  He  felt  that  he  was  called  to  some¬ 
thing  higher  than  farm-work.  He  felt  the  power  of 
intellect  throbbing  in  his  brain,  and  the  zeal  of  the 
apostle  beating  in  his  heart. 

His  father,  too,  saw  that  John  would  not  succeed 
as  a  farmer,  and  therefore  sought  to  get  him  a  better 
place.  This  was  soon  found  near  Annaloghan,  at 
Favor  Royal,  where  the  head-gardener  of  the  Mout- 
rays,  a  family  of  wealth,  took  John  into  service,  and 
gave  him  lessons  in  horticulture,  receiving  the  benefit 
of  his  labour  as  compensation.  He  also  helped  his 
father  to  till  a  small  farm  which  he  had  leased  at  Der- 
naved ;  but  he  never  gave  up  his  purpose  to  become  a 
priest.  After  working  hard  during  the  day  at  manual 
labour,  he  spent  the  evening  trying  to  cultivate  his 
mind  by  reading  and  study.  The  future  archbishop, 
then  a  rough-looking  boy,  at  the  close  of  the  day 
trying  to  learn  Latin  by  the  aid  of  a  rush -light  in  a 
peasant’s  cottage,  is  a  subject  fit  for  the  brush  of  a 
Rembrandt.  But  in  Ireland  it  was  impossible  for 
him  to  realize  his  desire  of  acquiring  a  college  edu¬ 
cation.  The  penal  laws  compelled  Catholics  to  be 
ignorant,  or  forswear  their  creed.  Their  schools  were 
prohibited.  The  Catholic  farming-class  was  kept 
down,  and  systematically  impoverished  by  absentee 
landlords,  and  despotic  and  cruel  land-agents.1  The 

1  The  reader  may  gain  a  good  knowledge  of  the  condition 
of  Ireland  in  these  times  from  Caiieton’s  “Tales  of  the 


HIS  BIRTH  AND  EARLY  EDUCATION  21 


farmer  who  improved  his  land  was  punished  by  an 
increase  of  rent,  demanded  by  an  absentee  landlord ; 
and  no  matter  what  the  economy  of  the  tenant,  he 
could  never  become  owner  of  the  soil.  Patrick 
Hughes,  like  all  of  his  class,  felt  keenly  the  injustice 
of  these  laws,  which,  by  putting  a  tax  and  a  penalty 
on  the  peasant’s  industry  and  thrift,  rendered  it  im¬ 
possible  for  him  to  improve  his  lot.  His  Catholic 
baptism  made  him  a  disfranchised  serf,  lower  in  the 
social  scale  than  the  Protestant  pauper  who  was  a 
charge  on  the  county.  Consequently  the  Hughes 
family  longed  to  leave  the  land  of  bondage  and  seek 
the  favoured  shores  of  the  New  World.  But  it  was 
not  possible  for  all  to  leave  at  once.  The  father  and 
the  second  son,  Patrick,  went  to  the  United  States  in 
the  year  1816,  to  prepare  a  home  for  the  rest  of  the 
family.  John  left  the  service  of  Mr.  Moutray,  and 
returned  home  to  help  his  brother  Michael  cultivate 
the  farm.  Patrick  Hughes  and  his  son  Patrick  set¬ 
tled  in  Pennsylvania,  at  Chambersburg,  where  they 
found  work;  and  in  the  following  year,  1817,  John 
followed  them,  hating  the  government  that  had  com¬ 
pelled  him  to  leave  his  native  land,  and  bearing  with 
him  a  love  for  the  land  of  his  adoption,  —  a  love  that 
grew  with  his  years  and  brightened  his  whole  future 
career.  Like  all  his  exiled  countrymen,  he  loved  the 

Irish  Peasantry,”  and  especially  from  his  novel,  “  Valentine 
McClutchy,  or  the  Irish  Agent.” 


22 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


United  States  devotedly.  Irish  love  of  freedom  is 
intensified  by  hatred  of  the  oppression  under  which 
the  people  suffer  at  home ;  and  consequently  no  for¬ 
eigners  become  citizens  of  the  United  States  with 
such  eagerness  and  love  of  our  institutions  as  Catholic 
Irishmen. 


1  i  *  i  i  !•.  j  ?,jj  •  }  j  -  *  .  ?rp  *  ..Mi  •/>  1 1/|  ij , ;  u  •  -f 

CHAPTER  II. 

His  Early  Struggles  in  America.  —  Works  as  a 
Day-Labourer.  —  Enters  Mount  St.  Mary’s 
Seminary,  and  has  his  First  Controversy. 

John  Hughes  was  twenty  years  old  when  he  landed 
at  Baltimore,  in  1817.  He  thus  describes  his  feelings 
as  he  crossed  the  stormy  Atlantic  :  — 

“  I  was  afloat  on  the  ocean,  looking  for  a  home  and  a 
country  in  which  no  stigma  of  inferiority  would  be  im¬ 
pressed  on  my  brow  simply  because  I  professed  one 
creed  or  another.” 

For  a  time  after  landing  he  laboured  on  a  plan¬ 
tation  in  Eastern  Maryland,  and  then  went  to 
Chambersburg,  in  Pennsylvania,  and  worked  with  his 
father  for  over  a  year,  doing  all  kinds  of  manual 
labour.  In  the  following  year  his  mother  and  the  rest 
of  the  family,  who  had  remained  in  Ireland,  joined  his 
father  and  himself  at  Chambersburg.  Patrick  Hughes, 
by  labour  and  industry,  was  able  to  do  in  this  country 
what  he  could  not  have  done  in  Ireland,  —  he  left  his 
family  a  house  and  some  land  when  he  died,  in  1 83  7, 


24 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


at  the  age  of  seventy.  Before  his  death  he  had  the1 
consolation  of  seeing  John  a  priest. 

John,  when  a  young  man  of  twenty,  was  usually  re¬ 
served,  always  well-dressed  and  respectable,  self-pos¬ 
sessed  and  of  quiet  manners.  He  had  a  distinguished 
look  even  in  his  poverty.  He  was  of  a  lively  dispo¬ 
sition,  and  could  tell  a  good  story  and  sing  a  good 
song.  He  was  a  member  of  the  village  choir. 
Every  one  looked  on  him  as  one  destined  to  make 
his  mark  in  a  career  above  his  actual  station.  He 
persevered  in  his  studious  habits,  and  in  his  purpose 
of  entering  the  holy  ministry.  He  had  heard  that) 
about  thirty  miles  from  Chambersburg,  among  the 
hills  of  Emmittsburg,  was  the  Seminary  of  Mount  St. 
Mary,  —  an  institution  for  the  education  of  Catholics 
both  lay  and  clerical.  Into  this  institution  poor  stu¬ 
dents  were  often  admitted,  if  they  intended  to  become 
priests,  and  in  return  for  their  services  as  teachers  in 
the  college,  they  received  the  necessary  training  in 
theology. 

John  made  several  applications  for  admission,  but 
repeatedly  failed.  When  he  called,  he  was  often  told 
that  there  was  no  vacancy;  but  he  was  determined 
not  to  miss  his  opportunity.  He  went  to  live  at 
Emmittsburg,  in  order  to  be  near  the  college.  He 
worked  in  the  town  as  a  common  labourer,  and 
helped  to  dig  a  mill-race  and  build  a  stone  bridge 
over  a  little  stream  running  between  Emmittsburg  and 


WORKS  AS  A  DAY-LABOURER. 


25 


Taneytown.  This  bridge  was  often  pointed  out  after¬ 
ward  as  the  scene  of  his  early  labours.  He  boarded 
with  a  schoolmaster  named  Mullen,  one  of  his  own 
countrymen.  John’s  fellow-workmen  recognized  in 
him  a  superior,  such  was  the  natural  dignity  of  his 
manner  and  the  force  even  of  his  uncultured  mind ; 
the  better  classes  of  the  neighbourhood  treated  him 
as  an  equal.  With  anxiety  he  watched  the  college, 
and  prayed  for  the  expected  admission. 

The  president  of  this  renowned  institution  was  then 
the  Rev.  John  Dubois,  a  French  priest  who  after¬ 
ward  became  bishop  of  New  York.  He  had  been  a 
fellow- student  in  Paris  with  Robespierre,  and  had 
seen  much  of  the  horrors  of  the  French  Revolution. 
He  came  to  this  country  with  letters  of  recommenda¬ 
tion  from  Lafayette,  to  some  of  the  prominent  Vir¬ 
ginia  families  of  the  time,  —  such  as  the  Lees  and 
the  Randolphs,  —  and  to  Patrick  Henry.  Dubois 
was  a  typical  pioneer-priest  of  the  best  French  type,  - — 
strong-willed,  hard-working,  zealous,  and  pious,  easily 
accommodating  himself  to  his  surroundings,  no  matter 
how  unpleasant.  He  founded  Mount  St.  Mary’s  in 
spite  of  many  difficulties,  and  made  it  for  years  the 
centre  of  Catholic  education  in  our  young  republic. 

In  1819,  after  various  refusals,  Mr.  Hughes  again 
made  application  to  Father  Dubois  for  admission  to 
the  seminary.  He  received  the  usual  answer,  — 
there  was  no  vacancy ;  but  a  qualification  was  added  : 


\ 


\ 


26 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


“All  I  can  do,”  said  Father  Dubois  to  the  future 
archbishop  of  New  York,  “  is  to  give  you  work  in  the 
garden.”  Mr.  Hughes  at  once  accepted  the  offer, 
and  became  superintendent  of  the  college  garden.  In 
return  for  his  services  he  was  to  receive  board,  lodg¬ 
ing,  and  private  instruction  until  he  should  be  able  to 
teach  a  class  and  be  formally  admitted  among  the 
levites  of  the  seminary.  It  was  November  io,  1819, 
when  the  dream  of  his  boyish  years  in  Ireland  was 
about  to  be  realized,  and  the  harvest  of  his  perse¬ 
verance  and  fervent  prayer  was  about  to  be  reaped. 

As  all  the  students  at  Mount  St.  Mary’s  worked 
occasionally  at  manual  labour  in  those  days,  —  either 
for  the  sake  of  saving  expense,  or  for  their  health,  — 
Mr.  Hughes’s  position  as  a  gardener  did  not  lower  him 
in  the  eyes  of  the  other  students.  He  had  under  him 
the  coloured  men  Timothy  and  Peter,  who  lived  at  the 
college  for  many  years  after  he  had  left  it.  During  the 
nine  months  he  held  this  post,  he  used  every  spare 
moment  in  the  prosecution  of  his  studies.  One  day 
during  the  dinner-hour  Father  Dubois  found  him 
studying  instead  of  eating  his  meal.  This  impressed 
the  mind  of  the  president,  who  began  to  question  the 
industrious  young  man,  and  finding  that  he  had  made 
wonderful  progress  in  Latin,  relieved  him  of  many  of 
his  duties  in  the  garden  and  took  him  into  the  college 
as  a  regular  student,  in  a.  d.  1820.  Father  Dubois  was 
a  good  judge  of  character,  and  recognized  the  force 


LIFE  IN  MOUNT  ST.  MARY'S. 


27 


of  his  future  coadjutor  and  successor  in  the  See  of 
New  York. 

Another  French  priest  who  then  helped  Father 
Dubois  in  the  management  of  the  college,  was  the 
saintly  and  learned  Father  Brut£,  who  afterward  be¬ 
came  the  first  bishop  of  Vincennes.  He  was  born 
at  Rennes,  in  Brittany,  France,  March  20,  1779, 
studied  medicine  in  Paris,  and  after  finishing  his 
course,  gave  up  the  world  and  entered  the  Seminary 
of  St.  Sulpice,  and  was  ordained  a  priest  there  in 
1808.  Five  years  later  he  came  to  the  United  States 
as  a  missionary,  with  another  of  his  countrymen, 
Father  Flaget,  afterward  the  first  bishop  of  Bards- 
town,  Kentucky. 

Although  Mr.  Hughes  was  at  this  time  twenty-three 
years  old,  his  memory  was  as  good  as  that  of  the 
brightest  of  the  college  lads,  and  he  made  great  pro¬ 
gress  in  his  studies  under  his  able  professor,  Father 
Brute.  He  learned  rapidly  while  employed  in  teach¬ 
ing  others.  He  gave  instruction  in  the  common  Eng¬ 
lish  branches,  and  in  the  rudiments  of  Latin,  to  the 
lower  classes  in  the  college,  and  at  the  same  time 
superintended  the  workmen  in  the  garden.  He  was  a 
rigid  disciplinarian,  and  the  unruly  boys  dreaded  him. 
They  felt  that  they  were  under  a  man  born  to  com¬ 
mand,  and  that  he  would  compel  them  to  obey  by 
physical  force  if  necessary.  He  was  therefore  an  ex¬ 
cellent  prefect.  The  boys  feared  his  sarcasm  as  much 


28 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


as  they  dreaded  his  physical  strength.  Some  of  them 
occasionally  sought  revenge  for  punishment  by  mock¬ 
ing  his  Irish  accent  and  race.  Once  a  party  of  boys, 
the  leader  of  whom  was  the  son  of  a  well-known 
judge,  made  a  stuffed  figure  to  represent  Saint  Patrick ; 
and  on  the  1 7  th  of  March,  the  feast  of  the  Saint,  at  a 
given  signal  they  hoisted  it  and  hung  it  to  one  of  the 
rafters  of  the  study  hall,  while  Mr.  Hughes  was  keep¬ 
ing  order  in  the  prefect’s  chair.  He  looked  quietly 
at  the  figure,  and  then  sharply  at  the  ringleader  of  the 
unruly  set,  and  said  aloud  :  “  O  tempora,  O  mores ! 
the  son  of  a  judge  has  become  a  hangman.”  There 
was  a  laugh  at  the  culprit,  and  the  name  of  “Jack 
Ketch”  stuck  to  him  afterward  through  his  whole 
college  career.  The  boys  played  no  more  tricks  on 
the  stalwart  seminarian. 

He  soon  had  an  opportunity  of  engaging  in  his 
first  important  religious  controversy.  It  was  the 
style  in  those  days  to  attack  the  Catholic  Church 
everywhere,  and  sometimes  even  in  Fourth  of  July 
speeches.  Some  orator  had  made  an  attack  on  the 
Church  on  the  Fourth  of  July,  at  Chambersburg,  and 
Mr.  Hughes  was  asked  to  reply.  He  did  so ;  but  so 
sharply  that  the  editor  of  the  “  Franklin  Repository  ” 
could  hardly  be  prevailed  on  to  publish  his  letter. 
He  felt  bitterly  and  keenly  the  false  charges  which 
were  made  against  his  creed,  and  he  found  it  hard 
to  show  mercy  to  calumniators  who  ought  to  know. 


HIS  FIRST  CONTROVERSY. 


29 


and  who  often  did  know,  that  they  were  stating  false¬ 
hoods.  He  was  still  but  an  untrained  writer  and  an 
undeveloped  orator.  When  called  upon  to  read  his 
first  essay  before  the  college  literary  society,  he  broke 
down.  He  was  so  nervous  that  he  could  not  open 
his  mouth,  and  the  paper  fell  from  his  hands.  But 
he  soon  got  over  his  timidity  and  became  an  able 
debater.  His  application  to  study  was  intense.  An 
ordinary  constitution  would  have  broken  down  under 
the  circumstances  ;  but  his  blood  was  pure,  the  moun¬ 
tain  air  was  good,  and  the  healthful  excursions  which 
he  made  with  the  other  students  in  long  rambles, 
sometimes  even  as  far  as  Chambersburg,  where  he 
often  visited  his  parents,  kept  his  body  vigorous  and 
gave  the  necessary  recreation  to  his  mind. 

On  one  occasion  a  fire  broke  out  in  the  woods 
near  the  college,  and  the  whole  faculty  and  the  stu¬ 
dents  were  summoned  to  stem  the  advance  of  the 
flames.  Such  was  the  common  respect  for  Mr. 
Hughes’s  ability,  that  he  was  unanimously  chosen  com¬ 
mander  of  the  forces.  All  implicitly  obeyed  him,  and 
in  a  short  time  the  flames  were  conquered.  Every 
one  saw  in  him  the  courage  of  the  soldier  and  the 
skill  of  the  general.  He  planned,  stationed  sentinels 
along  the  fire-belt,  hurried  from  place  to  place,  or¬ 
dering,  encouraging  the  boys  and  the  men,  and  work¬ 
ing  more  than  any  one  himself.  When  the  fire  was 
out,  he  retired  from  the  field,  late  at  night,  with  his 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


3°' 

best  coat  nearly  burned  off  his  back.  As  he  was  too 
poor  to  buy  a  new  one,  for  months  he  wore  the  old 
one,  with  a  large  patch  between  his  shoulders. 

About  the  year  1823  he  had  acquired  sufficient  clas¬ 
sical  knowledge  to  entitle  him  to  begin  the  study  of 
theology.  He  was  then  twenty-six  years  of  age  ;  thus 
commencing  his  theological  studies  at  an  age  when 
most  seminarians  have  finished  their  course  and  have 
gone  to  their  work  as  priests.  His  advanced  age, 
however,  had  given  him  the  experience  and  the  ripe¬ 
ness  of  judgment  so  necessary  to  the  American  mis¬ 
sionary,  the  early  years  of  whose  ministry  are  sur¬ 
rounded  by  so  many  temptations  and  dangers.  The 
saintly  and  learned  Father  Brute  taught  him  theology. 
How  delighted  must  the  young  seminarian  have  been 
when  he  first  donned  the  cassock  for  which  he  had 
longed  in  childhood ;  and  how  his  heart  beat  with 
pleasure  as  he  felt  the  time  for  his  ordination  draw 
near.  His  mental  powers  developed  rapidly  under 
culture.  He  was  fast  gaining  a  reputation  in  the 
college  as  an  orator,  although  his  gestures  were  still 
far  from  graceful ;  but  his  diction  was  pure,  and  his 
emotional  power  great.  He  was  always  a  writer  of 
good  English,  and  he  had  the  talent  of  expressing 
his  thoughts  with  clearness  and  force.  The  college 
boys  feared  and  admired,  while  the  professors  re¬ 
spected  him.  He  rose  in  the  seminary  and  in  the 
college.  He  was  made  chief-prefect  of  discipline. 


MONEY-RAISING  TOUR. 


31 


But  as  he  belonged  to  the  old  school,  and  believed 
that  he  who  spared  the  rod  spoiled  the  child,  he 
often  inflicted  physical  chastisement  on  the  mis- 
behaving  boys.  On  this  account  he  was  soon  re¬ 
moved  from  office  by  his  superiors,  who  preferred  a 
milder  system  of  government. 

In  1824  the  college  was  burned  down,  and  the 
seminarists  went  about  the  country  collecting  funds 
to  build  a  new  one.  Mr.  Hughes  was  very  success¬ 
ful  in  his  efforts  among  his  old  neighbours  and  friends. 
He  made  a  tour  through  the  country  near  Chambers- 
burg,  collecting  money,  and  often  engaging  in  re¬ 
ligious  controversy  with  those  who  met  him  and 
presumed  to  attack  his  creed.  He  was  now  a  much 
better  debater  than  formerly ;  and  as  he  had  learned 
some  theology,  he  met  and  defeated,  to  the  great  de¬ 
light  of  his  co-religionists,  many  a  village  declaimer 
against  “  Popery.”  The  funds  were  so  generously 
contributed  that  Father  Dubois  was  soon  able  to 
rebuild  the  college;  and  in  1826  a  new  structure 
arose  on  the  ruins  of  the  old  one. 

As  a  seminarian,  Mr.  Hughes  not  only  cultivated 
controversy,  but  also  the  muse  of  poetry,  and  we 
have  several  of  his  productions  published  at  this 
time  in  “The  Adams  Centinel,”  at  Gettysburg.  We 
shall  give  specimens  of  them  in  a  future  chapter. 


CHAPTER  III. 


He  is  ordained  a  Priest,  becomes  Rector  of  a 
Parish,  and  encounters  the  Trustee  System 
in  Philadelphia. 

V 

Mr.  Hughes  was  ordained  a  deacon  in  1825,  by  the 
Bishop  of  Philadelphia,  Right-Rev.  Doctor  Conwell, 
who  immediately  took  him  with  him  in  a  visitation 
of  the  diocese.  They  travelled  through  Pennsylvania 
chiefly  on  horseback,  for  in  those  days  there  were 
neither  railways  nor  stages  in  many  parts  of  the 
country.  The  sturdy  deacon  rather  enjoyed  the 
tour  among  the  great  valleys  and  the  wild  moun¬ 
tains.  The  bishop  insisted  that  he  should  preach 
wherever  they  went.  The  deacon  had  therefore  to 
preach  his  first  sermon  on  the  missions  in  a  log- 
church  at  a  place  called  Path  Valley,  where  the 
bishop  gave  the  sacrament  of  confirmation  to  a 
number  of  children  and  adults.  It  was  the  only 
sermon  he  had  ready ;  and  as  there  was  little  time 
to  prepare  another  in  their  travels,  he  preached  it 
everywhere,  to  the  amusement  of  the  pleasant  bishop. 


RECTOR  OF  A  PARISH. 


33 


who  jocosely  called  it  the  “Cuckoo  Sermon,’1  —  for 
the  cuckoo  has  only  a  note  or  two  in  the  compass  ot 
its  voice. 

At  Chambersburg,  he  found  a  tract  called  “  Pro¬ 
testantism  and  Popery,”  and  he  at  once  undertook 
to  refute  its  charges  against  the  Church.  He  pub¬ 
lished  his  answer  to  the  tract  in  the  “  United  States 
Catholic  Miscellany,”  of  Charleston,  and  afterward 
republished  it  as  a  pamphlet  with  the  title  “An 
Answer  to  Nine  Objections  made  by  an  Anonymous 
Writer  against  the  Catholic  Religion,  by  a  clergyman 
of  Chambersburg,  Franklin  Co.”  This  pamphlet  was 
printed  in  Philadelphia  a  few  months  after  Mr.  Hughes’s 
ordination  to  the  priesthood.  This  event  took  place 
on  Oct.  15,  1826,  in  St.  Joseph’s  Church,  Philadel¬ 
phia.  Right-Rev.  Henry  Conwell,  the  bishop  of 
the  see,  was  the  ordaining  prelate.  At  last  the  goal 
of  John  Hughes’s  early  aspirations  was  reached.  The 
persevering  Irish  peasant  was  now  Father  Hughes,  and 
the  field  was  open  for  the  display  of  all  his  talents 
and  religious  zeal.  He  was  appointed  first  an  as¬ 
sistant  to  Rev.  Dr.  Hurley,  pastor  of  St.  Augustine’s 
Church,  Philadelphia,  who  soon  learned  to  appreciate 
his  abilities  and  worth.  About  the  same  time  one  of 
his  professors  at  Mount  St.  Mary’s,  Father  Dubois,  was 
made  Bishop  of  New  York. 

From  St.  Augustine’s,  where  he  had  distinguished 
himself  by  perseverance  in  labour,  by  love  of  books, 

3 


34 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


by  zeal,  and  by  skill  in  controversy ,  Father  Hughes 
was  transferred  to  Bedford,  to  take  the  place  of  the 
Rev.  Father  Heyden,  promoted  to  a  city  parish  in 
Philadelphia.  In  the  mountainous  regions  of  his  new 
mission  the  young  priest  toiled  unceasingly.  He  met 
everywhere,  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  settlers  imbued 
with  bitter  prejudices  against  his  religion.  Every¬ 
where  he  defended  it  by  tongue  and  pen,  and  his 
courage  and  manliness  won  their  admiration,  and  the 
love  of  his  poor  flock.  In  1827  he  was  recalled  to 
Philadelphia,  where  a  storm  of  ecclesiastical  disputes 
was  raging.  The  experience  which  he  gained  on  this 
occasion  taught  him  prudence,  and  how  to  act  after¬ 
ward  in  the  battles  which  he  fought  in  New  York. 

The  Catholic  Churches  in  Philadelphia  were  then 
managed  by  what  is  known  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  in  the  United  States  as  the  “  trustee  system.” 
This  system  deprived  the  bishop  and  the  clergy  of 
the  control  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  gave  it  to  lay¬ 
men  chosen  by  the  pewholders.  Consequently  the 
pewholders  were  often  divided  into  factions,  and  the 
election  for  trustees  frequently  turned  the  Churches 
into  political  meeting  houses.  Unprincipled  men 
took  advantage  of  this  state  of  affairs,  and  sometimes 
Catholics  only  in  name  controlled  the  Church  prop¬ 
erty,  paid  the  priests’  salaries,  and  claimed  to  control 
clerical  appointments  to  office,  in  spite  of  the  pastor 
appointed  by  the  bishop,  and  in  spite  of  the  bishop 


THE  TRUSTEE  SYSTEM. 


35 


himself.  Nearly  all  the  Catholic  congregations  of  the 
time  were  torn  by  scandals  and  controversies,  owing 
to  this  system.  When  Bishop  Conwell,  in  1820,  went 
to  Philadelphia,  he  found  his  Cathedral  of  St.  Mary’s 
in  charge  of  a  popular  but  unworthy  priest  named 
Hogan.  The  bishop  suspended  him ;  but  the  trus¬ 
tees  and  a  part  of  the  people  refused  to  recognize 
the  episcopal  suspension.  According  to  the  civil  law, 
the  board  of  trustees  should  consist  of  eight  laymen, 
annually  elected  by  the  pewholders,  and  of  not  more 
than  three  priests,  the  mode  of  whose  election  was 
not  specified.  The  bishop  claimed  the  right  to  ap¬ 
point  or  remove  these  three,  according  to  the  custom 
of  the  Church ;  but  the  lay-trustees  claimed  the  right 
for  themselves.  Hogan  urged  them  to  take  posses¬ 
sion  of  the  Cathedral.  This  they  did ;  and  the 
bishop  with  his  faithful  clergy  retired  to  the  neigh¬ 
bouring  Church  of  St.  Joseph. 

Even  after  Hogan  had  publicly  left  the  Church, 
married  a  wife,  and  become  a  Protestant,  in  1824,  the 
disorders  continued.  Unfortunately  for  Philadelphia, 
Bishop  Conwell  was  a  man  of  weak  character.  Worn 
out  by  the  length  of  the  conflict  with  the  trustees,  he 
made  an  illegal  and  uncanonical  surrender  of  his 
rights.  The  trustees  rejoiced ;  but  the  faithful  clergy 
and  laity  mourned.  It  was  at  this  time  that  Father 
Hughes  was  brought  back  from  the  mountains  to  the 
city,  and  made  pastor,  first,  of  St.  Joseph’s  Church,  and 


3& 


JOHN  HUGHES. . 


soon  after,  of  St.  Mary’s,  still  disturbed  by  the  turbu¬ 
lent  trustees.  Father  Heyden,  disgusted  with  them, 
had  left  and  gone  back  to  his  old  parish,  rural  and 
peaceful  Bedford.  The  new  pastor  of  St.  Mary’s, 
after  a  short  experience  with  the  rebels,  also  judged  it 
wiser  to  leave  them  severely  alone.  He  therefore 
retired,  and  the  bishop  would  give  them  no  priest. 
Consequently  the  congregation  deserted  St.  Mary’s. 
Rome,  to  which  appeals  had  been  made,  soon  acted, 
and  condemned  the  weak  and  uncanonical  conces¬ 
sions  made  by  the  bishop,  and  “  determined,”  in  the 
words  of  Father  Hughes,  “  that  the  bishop  should  be 
bishop  in  spite  of  himself.” 

In  a  letter  to  Father  Brut£,  written  at  this  time,  the 
future  archbishop  thus  expressed  his  feelings :  — 

“What  will  become  of  the  Church  if  laymen,  some¬ 
times  as  depraved  as  they  are  ignorant,  have  such  influ¬ 
ence  in  her  government?  What  will  become  of  the 
clergy,  if  they  must  descend  from  their  sacred  character, 
and  become  parties  and  the  tools  of  parties  in  the  petty 
broils  of  contending  rivals  for  the  office  of  trustee  ?  And 
for  what  advantage  ?  Just  to  have  the  choosing  of  their 
masters.  There  is  no  remedy  for  all  this  until  the  time 
shall  have  come  to  aim  the  blow,  not  at  the  branches, 
but  at  the  root  of  this  abominable  system  of  trusteeing 
Churches.” 

At  this  time  an  incident  occured  worthy  of  special 
note.  Bishop  Conwell  was  summoned  to  Rome,  and 


37 


THE  TRUSTEE  SYSTEM, L 

an  administrator  appointed  in  his  place.  Harold  and 
Ryan,  two  insubordinate  Dominican  priests  who  had 
been  officiating  in  St.  Mary’s  Church,  were  removed 
from  Philadelphia  by  order  of  their  superior,  the 
vicar-general  of  their  order,  and  of  the  Pope,  and 
sent  to  Cincinnati.  The  two  suspended  priests  ap¬ 
pealed  to  the  United  States  government  against  the 
papal  order.  Mr.  Adams,  who  was  then  our  president, 
instructed  the  American  minister  at  Paris  to  bring  the 
appeal  before  the  papal  nuncio  there ;  but  as  the 
nuncio  clearly  showed  that  the  case  was  of  a  purely 
spiritual  character,  of  pure  ecclesiastical  jurisdic¬ 
tion,  and  not  within  the  domain  of  the  civil  power, 
Mr.  Henry  Clay,  then  Secretary  of  State,  ordered  the 
minister  at  Paris  to  have  nothing  more  to  do  with 
the  affair. 

Bishop  Conwell  remained  at  Rome  nearly  a  year, 
then  returned  to  Philadelphia,  where  he  died  in  1842, 
at  the  venerable  age  of  ninety-four.  The  Pope  never 
restored  jurisdiction  to  the  weak  but  well-meaning 
old  bishop.  Priests  Harold  and  Ryan  soon  after  sub¬ 
mitted  to  their  superiors,  and  the  case  against  them 
was  closed.  But  the  effects  of  their  scandal  long 
continued. 

During  all  these  troubles  Father  Hughes  worked 
zealously  in  his  parish,  and  fought  for  his  Church. 
He  strove  to  remove  the  prejudices  against  her, 
which  he  knew  existed  in  the  minds  of  even  well- 


38 


JOHN  HUGHES . 


meaning  Americans.  He  strove  to  put  her  doctrines 
before  the  American  mind  in  their  true  colours.  For 
this  purpose,  in  addition  to  his  parochial  duties,  he 
tried  to  found  a  tract  society  for  the  publication  of 
cheap  Catholic  literature  of  a  controversial  character. 
He  wrote  for  this  purpose  a  religious  tale,  to  counter¬ 
act  the  supposed  influence  of  a  small  Protestant  novel 
published  in  England,  republished  in  this  country, 
and  circulated  freely  among  the  poor  Catholics.  The 
hero  was  Andrew  Dunn,  who,  it  was  feigned,  had 
become  a  Protestant  because  the  priest  had  horse¬ 
whipped  him  for  doubting  certain  articles  of  the 
Catholic  Creed.  After  the  whipping,  Andrew  takes 
to  reading  the  Bible,  frequents  the  society  of  the 
godly,  soon  sees  the  errors  of  “  Popery,”  and  be¬ 
comes  a  match  for  all  the  Roman  theologians. 
Father  Hughes  knew  that,  although  this  novel  was 
stupid,  it  would  do  harm,  and  that  all  its  calumnies 
would  be  believed  by  prejudiced  minds.  He  there¬ 
fore  made  merely  a  slight  change  in  the  title  of  the 
story  and  called  it,  “  The  Conversion  and  Edifying 
Death  of  Andrew  Dunn,”  The  plot  of  this  work  and 
of  the  original  is  poorly  constructed.  But  the  future 
archbishop  shows  in  his  production  that  familiarity 
with  the  weapons  of  theological  war,  and  that  vigour  of 
reasoning,  which  always  distinguished  him.  Andrew, 
in  going  through  the  process  of  reconversion,  and 
in  preparing  himself  for  an  edifying  death  in  the 


CONTRO  VERSIES. 


39 


bosom  of  the  Mother  Church,  asks  his  Protestant 
friends  to  solve  his  doubts  and  to  answer  his  ques¬ 
tions.  How  does  he  know  that  his  understanding  of 
the  Bible  is  the  right  one  ?  How  can  a  Church  that 
is  only  three  hundred  years  old  be  the  true  one? 
And  how  can  any  one  say  in  the  Creed,  “  I  believe 
in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,”  if  he  is  not  a  member 
of  it  ?  Andrew  prays  for  light,  realizes  that  the  Bible 
is  not  its  own  interpreter,  and  that  the  only  interpre¬ 
ter  is  the  Infallible  Church,  that  the  book  cannot 
interpret  itself,  that  it  needs  a  reliable  interpreter  as 
the  law  requires  a  competent  judge  to  decide  its 
meaning.  He  concludes,  therefore,  with  Melanchthon 
and  Henry  IV.  of  France,  that  the  “  Infallible  Church 
is  the  only  reliable  interpreter  of  the  Bible,  and  the 
safest  one  to  die  in.” 

Father  Hughes,  like  most  young  authors,  was  en¬ 
thusiastic  over  his  first  book.  He  imagined  that  it 
was  going  to  have  a  wide  circulation,  and  convert  the 
whole  country  to  the  Catholic  Church.  He  wrote  at 
once  to  his  old  professor,  Father  Brut£,  sending  him 
five  dollars’  worth  of  copies  of  “  Andrew  Dunn.”  But 
Father  Brut£  could  neither  sell  the  copies,  nor  pay 
for  them,  and  Father  Hughes,  finding  his  first  tract  a 
failure,  discontinued  his  efforts  to  found  a  Catholic 
publication  society.  He  made  more  converts  in 
Philadelphia  by  his  tongue  than  by  his  pen.  In  his 
letters  written  at  this  time  he  speaks  of  many  men 


40 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


and  women  who  joined  the  Church  after  hearing  him 
explain  Catholic  doctrines  from  the  pulpit. 

While  busy  with  his  pen,  he  was  also  indefatigable 
in  works  of  charity.  In  1829  he  founded  St.John’s 
Orphan  Asylum,  and  five  years  afterward  he  writes 
of  it  in  the  “  Catholic  Herald  ”  :  — 

“  This  asylum,  since  the  period  of  its  establishment,  has 
afforded  home,  protection,  food,  clothing,  and  education 
to  a  number  of  destitute  orphans,  varying  from  twenty  to 
twenty-eight.  It  has,  besides  this,  afforded  the  benefits  of 
religious  instruction  and  gratuitous  education  to  more  than 
one  thousand  female  children.  The  money  to  support  it 
has  been  derived  from  the  subscriptions  of  the  original 
society,  from  private  donations,  from  the  sale  of  fancy 
articles  manufactured  by  the  Sisters  themselves,  and 
from  the  proceeds  of  five  charity  sermons,  together  with 
one  or  two  inconsiderable  legacies  of  a  hundred  dollars 
each.” 

A  hard-working  pastor  of  souls  was  Father  Hughes. 
His  time  was  occupied  from  morning  to  night  listen¬ 
ing  to  the  tales  of  woe  which  misery  poured  into  his 
ear,  settling  disputes  in  families,  comforting  the  sick 
and  the  dying  day  and  night. 

No  pastor  was  ever  more  punctual  or  faithful  than 
he  in  attending  to  all  the  varied  duties  of  a  Catholic 
priest  in  a  large  city  parish.  He  was  indeed  equal  to 
the  task,  which  was  but  a  preliminary  to  greater  and 
more  conspicuous  duties  in  the  higher  office  which  he 


CONTRO  VERSIES. 


41 


soon  attained.  Everything  that  concerned  the  wel¬ 
fare  of  his  fellowman,  but  especially  what  concerned 
his  adopted  country,  interested  him.  He  also  partic¬ 
ularly  remembered  Ireland,  the  land  of  his  birth. 
Her  sorrows  affected  him  deeply,  and  he  always  re¬ 
joiced  in  whatever  improved  the  condition  of  her 
long-oppressed  people. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


His  Interest  in  Irish  Catholic  Emancipation.— 
Controversy  with  Doctor  Delancey.  —  His 
Letters  to  “the  Protestant.” 

Father  Hughes,  who  had  suffered,  and  who  had  seen 
his  countrymen  suffer,  under  the  English  penal  laws, 
was  filled  with  joy  when  he  heard  of  the  passage  of 
the  Catholic  Emancipation  Bill,  through  the  English 
parliament.  George  IV.  signed  the  bill  on  April  13, 
1829,  and  as  soon  as  the  news  reached  America  a 
solemn  Mass  of  thanksgiving  was  celebrated  in  St. 
Augustine’s  Church,  Philadelphia,  on  the  31st  of  May. 
Father  Hughes  preached  the  sermon  from  the  text : 
“  Lord,  thou  hast  blessed  the  land,  thou  hast  turned 
away  the  captivity  of  Jacob.  .  .  .  Mercy  and  truth 
have  met  each  other :  justice  and  peace  have  kissed. 
Truth  is  sprung  out  of  the  earth ;  and  justice  hath 
looked  down  from  Heaven.”  1  This,  his  first  printed 
sermon,  was  dedicated  to  Daniel  O’Connell.  It 
made  Father  Hughes’s  reputation  as  an  orator,  and 
was  the  occasion  of  one  of  his  controversies.  The 


1  Psalm  lxxxiv. 


IRISH  CATHOLIC  EMANCIPATION . 


43 


“  Church  Register,”  organ  of  the  Philadelphia  Epis¬ 
copalians,  and  then  edited  by  Rev.  W.  H.  Delancey, 
D.  D.,  attacked  the  Catholics  on  the  occasion  of  their 
emancipation,  and  in  a  series  of  articles  expressed 
fears  and  regrets  in  consequence  of  their  restoration 
to  citizenship  in  the  British  Empire.  Father  Hughes 
replied  with  vigour  in  a  series  of  letters  to  the  “  United 
States  Gazette,”  and  thenceforward  seemed  to  con¬ 
sider  it  his  duty  to  reply  to  every  attack  on  his 
religion. 

In  October,  1829,  the  first  provincial  council  of 
American  bishops  was  held  in  Baltimore ;  and  Father 
Hughes  was  present,  as  one  of  the  theologians  to  Very 
Rev.  Father  Matthews,  the  administrator  of  the  diocese 
of  Philadelphia.  The  old  Bishop  Conwell,  while  in 
Rome,  had  recommended  Father  Hughes  for  his 
successor;  but  the  Pope  appointed  the  Rev.  Francis 
Patrick  Kenrick,  president  of  a  theological  seminary 
at  Bardstown,  Kentucky,  as  coadjutor  to  Bishop  Con- 
well  and  administrator  of  the  diocese.  Father  Ken¬ 
rick,  then  in  his  thirty-second  year,  six  months 
younger  than  Father  Hughes,  was  consecrated  as 
titular  Bishop  of  Arath,  in  partibus  infidelium ,  at 
Bardstown,  by  Bishop  Flaget  on  June  6,  1830.  Bis¬ 
hop  Kenrick  afterward  became  Archbishop  of  Balti¬ 
more.  He  has  the  reputation  of  having  been  the 
best  theologian  in  the  American  Church.  He  wrote, 
among  other  works,  text-books  of  theology  and  a 


44 


JOHN  HUGHES . 


translation  of  the  Bible.  A  man  of  great  modesty,  he 
shunned  controversy  and  publicity.  The  schismatics 
of  Philadelphia  soon  yielded  to  his  gentle  but  forcible 
sway. 

About  this  time  Father  Hughes  wrote  a  letter  to  his 
sister  Ellen,  who  had  become  a  Sister  of  Charity  under 
the  name  of  Sister  Mary  Angela.  He  tells  her  of  his 
work  in  the  city  of  brotherly  love,  and  of  the  numer¬ 
ous  converts  whom  he  was  receiving  into  the  Church, 
and  adds  the  very  truthful  and  striking  statement  that, 
“  If  the  Catholics  themselves  were  what  they  should 
be,  the  number  of  converts  would  be  astonishing.” 
He  was  soon  engaged  in  another  controversy.  This 
time  his  opponent  was  one  of  his  own  creed  and  pro¬ 
fession,  a  prominent  Catholic  priest  of  New  York,  the 
Rev.  Thomas  C.  Levins.  The  occasion  of  this  con¬ 
troversy  was  peculiar,  and  Father  Hughes  was  often 
blamed  for  his  part  in  it.  The  following  are  the 
facts. 

There  was  published  in  New  York  at  that  time  a 
newspaper  approved  by  many  of  the  ministers  of  the 
city,  and  called  “  The  Protestant.”  It  made  weekly 
attacks  on  the  Catholic  Church,  and  published  all 
kinds  of  scandalous  stories  about  priests  and  nuns, 
without  taking  the  trouble  to  find  out  whether  they 
were  true  or  not.  Many  respectable  Protestants  de¬ 
nounced  it  for  its  scurrility  and  mendacity.  Father 
Hughes,  in  a  spirit  of  genuine  Irish  mischief,  deter- 


LETTERS  TO  “  THE  PROTESTANT” 


45 


mined  to  humbug  “The  Protestant”  and  expose  it 
by  sending  from  Philadelphia,  under  the  pseudonym 
of  “Crammer,”  a  number  of  absurd  communications 
on  the  growth  of  “  Popery,”  giving  coloured  reports  of 
Catholic  ceremonies  and  institutions.  The  Philadel¬ 
phia  correspondent  wrote  like  an  over-zealous  Protes¬ 
tant.  In  one  letter  “  Crammer  ”  told  how  the  four 
“  Mass-houses  ”  there  were  made  to  hold  twelve  con¬ 
gregations,  “  and  that  there  was  an  extra  Mass  late  in 
the  afternoon.”  He  described  an  imaginary  nunnery 
in  Cambria  County,  Pa.,  and  a  Jesuit  college  in  Pitts¬ 
burgh,  where  none  existed.  “The  Protestant,”  as  is 
usual  with  newspapers  of  that  class,  swallowed  the 
bait,  and  on  March  13,  praised  the  truthfulness  and 
zeal  of  its  most  reliable  correspondent.  It  said  :  — 

“  Our  Philadelphia  friend  communicates  his  melancholy 
intelligence  in  a  very  evangelical  spirit  of  sensibility  and 
fervour.  We  trust  ‘  Crammer  *  will  remember  that  his 
letters  are  sermons  of  momentous  importance,  and  that 
they  are  now  read  with  intense  and  increasing  interest  by 
a  rapidly  increasing  host  of  Protestants  of  a  like  spirit. 
The  oftener  we  decorate  our  columns  with  such  pathetic 
appeals  and  heart-stirring  facts,  the  more  encouragement 
we  shall  feel  to  blow  the  trumpet  in  Zion  and  sound  the 
alarm  in  the  Holy  Mountain.  We  hope  our  correspon¬ 
dent  will  supply  us  with  plenty  of  ammunition,  and  it 
shall  be  discharged  to  produce  the  desired  effect.” 

Again  the  enthusiastic  editor  writes :  “  We  have 
received  a  number  of  inquiries  for  our  friend  ‘  Cram- 


46 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


mer/  and  in  reply  we  are  highly  gratified  to  exhibit 
this  genuine  Protestant  of  the  city  of  Penn  in  propria 
persona ,”  and  then  follows  a  communication  from 
"  Crammer  ”  himself,  containing  the  usual  fables. 

After  deceiving  the  credulous  journalist  for  some 
time,  Father  Hughes  came  out  in  his  own  name  and 
excused  himself  for  imposing  on  the  credulity  of  “  The 
Protestant,”  by  stating  that  he  wished  to  show  how 
ready  the  newspaper  and  its  supporters  were  to  be¬ 
lieve  any  story,  no  matter  how  absurd,  against  the 
Catholic  Church.  Many  Catholics,  —  and  particularly 
Father  Levins,  — however,  blamed  him  for  what  they 
considered  an  undignified  act ;  and  he  himself  re¬ 
gretted  what  he  had  done,  although  it  had  the  effect 
of  making  the  slanderous  newspaper  ridiculous. 

Bishop  Kenrick  in  the  first  visitation  of  his  diocese 
was  accompanied  by  Father  Hughes,  who  had  the 
pleasure  of  preaching  before  his  venerable  father  and 
mother  in  the  church  at  Chambersburg.  The  bishop  and 
the  priest  visited  Bedford,  Pittsburgh,  and  Blairsville, 
and  stopped  for  a  time  with  Father  Galitzin,  a  Rus¬ 
sian  prince  and  convert  who  had  founded  a  Catholic 
settlement  at  Lorretto,  in  the  Alleghany  Mountains. 
After  this  visitation,  Father  Hughes  acted  for  a  time 
as  secretary  to  the  bishop,  and  agent  for  Mount  St. 
Mary’s  College.  He  was  always  occupied.  At  this 
time  he  began  a  series  of  sermons  on  the  evidences 
of  Christianity ;  and  Jews  as  well  as  Protestants 
flocked  to  hear  him. 


WORK  IN  HIS  DIOCESE . 


47 


The  “  trustees  ”  still  made  trouble  in  Philadelphia, 
especially  in  St.  Mary’s  Church,  so  that  the  bishop 
was  obliged  to  put  it  under  an  interdict,  and  order 
“  the  cessation  from  all  sacred  functions  in  the 
church  and  cemeteries  of  St.  Mary’s.”  Father  Hughes 
stood  at  the  right  hand  of  the  bishop  in  this  conflict, 
and  the  trustees  had  to  yield.  .  At  first  they  gave  up 
their  claim  to  the  right  of  appointing  the  pastors ;  and 
then  Father  Hughes  built  a  new  church  without  lay- 
trustees,  and  thus  completely  conquered  the  rebels. 
He  began  the  work  in  1821  ;  and  in  May  of  that 
year  the  bishop  laid  the  corner-stone  and  named 
the  church  St.  John’s.  It  became  the  fashionable 
church  of  the  city,  and  St.  Mary’s,  with  its  turbulent 
trustees,  was  almost  deserted.  St.  John’s  was  dedi¬ 
cated  in  1832.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Power  of  St.  Peter’s, 
New  York,  preached  the  dedication  sermon.  The 
new  parish  was  heavily  in  debt ;  but  a  Mr.  Frenaye, 
a  West  Indian  of  French  origin,  gave  his  whole  for¬ 
tune  to  help  Father  Hughes.  Another  friend  gave  him 
what  was  then  considered  a  very  large  subscription 
amounting  to  five  thousand  dollars. 

The  zealous  pastor,  surrounded  by  friends  and  ad¬ 
mirers,  amid  all  his  cares  and  duties  did  not  forget 
his  own  spiritual  and  mental  improvement.  He  gives 
us  a  knowledge  of  his  private  habits  in  a  letter  to 
his  old  friend  Father  Brut£  written  on  July  28,  1832  : 
“  Parties  of  pleasure  ...  are  not  frequented  by  me,  and 


4$  JOHN  HUGHES. 

except  one,  I  am  sure  I  visit  less  than  any  clergyman 
in  this  city.”  If  he  had  a  leisure  hour  after  reading 
his  breviary,  he  devoted  it  to  the  study  of  theology, 
especially  to  that  part  of  it  which  deals  with  the  ques¬ 
tions  in  dispute  between  Catholics  and  Protestants. 
Thus  he  prepared  himself  for  the  arena  of  conflict. 
He  knew  the  Catholic  arguments  well,  and  so  well- 
equipped  himself  that  he  was  a  match  for  the  dis¬ 
tinguished  Presbyterian  clergyman,  Rev.  Dr.  Brecken- 
ridge,  who  soon  became  his  first  great  opponent  in 
the  field  of  controversy. 


4*  /  * 


j 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Breckenridge  Controversy.  —  Father  Hughes 

PROPOSED  FOR  BlSHOP  OF  CINCINNATI. 

/ 

In  the  controversy  with  Dr.  Breckenridge,  this 
learned  divine  had  many  advantages.  He  belonged 
to  a  very  aristocratic  and  talented  family;  he  had 
received  a  fine  classical  education  in  the  best  schools. 

He  was  a  very  prominent  clergyman  in  his  own  sect ; 
and  conscious  of  great  talent  and  great  eloquence, 
he  and  his  friends  rather  despised  the  plebeian  Irish¬ 
man  whose  friends  were  very  poor  and  who  was  a 
minister  of  the  hated  Church  of  Rome.  In  those  days 
“  No  Popery  :  ”  was  a  very  popular  cry. 

The  origin  of  the  controversy  was  as  follows :  An 
anti-Catholic  tale,  called  “  Father  Clement,”  was  pub¬ 
lished  by  a  Protestant  book-concern,  and  then  severely 
reviewed  by  a  Catholic  layman.  Dr.  Breckenridge 
reviewed  the  reviewer  in  the  “  Christian  Advocate,” 
and  made  the  following  challenge  in  his  article :  i 

“  There  are  priests  and  bishops.  We  are  willing  to 
meet  any  one  of  them  on  the  broad  field  of  this  vital 
discussion.”  A  friend  of  Father  Hughes  who  had 
read  the  challenge,  presumed,  without  consulting  him, 

4 


5° 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


to  tell  others  that  Father  Hughes  would  reply  to  the 
Presbyterian  Champion.  The  subject  to  be  discussed 
was,  “The  Rule  of  Religious  Faith.” 

All  of  Father  Hughes’s  old  friends  —  some  from  fear 
of  his  lack  of  ability,  others  from  natural  aversion  to 
controversies  —  tried  to  dissuade  him  from  the  discus¬ 
sion.  But  he  felt  chivalrously  bound  to  stand  by  the 
promise  of  his  friend,  and  he  would  not  recede  even 
though  he  had  no  organ  in  which  to  publish  his 
answers  to  the  doctor’s  attacks. 

Some  friends  in  this  emergency  founded  the 
“  Catholic  Herald,”  and  thus  the  Catholics  of  Phila¬ 
delphia  were  enabled  to  read  the  arguments  of  their 
champion.  His  first  letter  to  the  doctor  contained  a 
characteristic  postscript :  “  You  take  great  pains,”  he 
writes,  “  to  show,  in  all  your  letters,  how  much  you  have 
to  do,  and  how  much  leisure  —  ‘  sanctuary  quietude  ’ — 

4 

remains  on  my  hands,  intimating  thereby  the  advan¬ 
tage  which  my  situation  gives  me  over  you  in  the 
conducting  of  this  controversy.  Be  assured,  Reverend 
Sir,  that  if  I  thought  the  public  could  be  interested  in 
the  details  of  my  avocations,  I  also  could  make  out  a 
tolerable  list  of  duties,  enough  perhaps  to  turn  the 
scales  of  comparison.  But  to  make  your  mind  easy 
on  the  subject  of  your  official  occupations,  I  beg  to 
state  that  I  am  prepared  to  sustain  the  Catholic  argu¬ 
ment,  if  God  gives  me  health,  against  any  or  all  the 
clergymen  of  the  synod  or  general  assembly,  provided 


THE  BRECKENRIDGE  CONTROVERSY :  51 

he  or  they  write  with  your  signature  and  adhere  to  the 
rules.”  The  controversy  ceased  in  September,  by  the 
retreat  of  Dr.  Breckenridge  from  the  field ;  and 
Father  Hughes  was  generally  admitted  to  have  gained 
a  victory.  It  made  him  famous.  The  Catholics, 
especially  in  Philadelphia  and  throughout  the  country, 
recognized  in  him  a  leader  able  to  defend  them  from 
the  attacks  of  all  their  enemies.  His  name  was  soon 
after  sent  to  Rome,  as  one  of  the  candidates  for  the 
vacant  see  of  Cincinnati.  But  Rome’s  choice  was  his 
friend  Dr.  Purcell,  who  was  consecrated  bishop  in  1833. 

Dr.  Breckenridge  was  not  satisfied  with  the  result 
of  the  written  controversy.  He  felt  the  opprobrium 
of  reputed  defeat,  and  longed  for  a  second  opportu¬ 
nity  to  retrieve  his  injured  reputation  as  a  controver¬ 
sialist  by  conquering  the  famous  priest.  Father 
Hughes  soon  gave  the  desired  opportunity.  He  was 
invited  to  deliver  a  lecture,  and  chose  as  the  subject 
of  it :  “  Whether  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion  is 
favourable  to  Civil  and  Religious  Liberty?”  Dr. 
Breckenridge  saw  the  announcement,  and  at  once 
wrote  the  following  challenge  :  — 

New  York,  January  21,  1835. 

Sir,  —  I  have  just  been  informed  that  you  are  ex¬ 
pected  to  address  a  society,  to-morrow  evening,  on  a 
question  of  which  the  following  is  the  substance, — 
“  Whether  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion  is  favourable  to 
Civil  and  Religious  Liberty?” 


52 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


\ 

I  write  a  few  lines  in  order  to  say  that  I  will  meet 
you  on  the  evening  of  the  29th  instant,  before  the  same 
society,  Providence  permitting,  on  that  question,  —  or  if 
that  be  not  agreeable  to  you,  in  any  other  place  where 
this  vital  question  may  be  fully  discussed  before  our 
fellow-citizens. 

As  I  shall  not  be  present,  I  request  that  you  will 
yourself  make  tHe  necessary  suggestions  to  the  society, 
to-morrow  evening,  and  give  me  as  early  a  reply  as  conven¬ 
ient.  I  can  conceive  of  only  one  reason  for  your  refusing, 
and  I  hope  time  has  overcome  that. 

I  remain,  yOur  obedient  servant, 

John  Breckenridge. 

Father  Hughes  did  not  wish  to  accept  this  chal¬ 
lenge.  Some  of  his  best  friends  disapproved  alto¬ 
gether  of  these  disputes,  which  often  only  excited 
passion  and  did  more  harm  than  good.  Besides,  was 
he  equipped  for  an  oral  debate  with  one  of  the  most 
eloquent  Presbyterian  divines  of  the  day?  Some 
doubted  it.  He  felt  himself  that  his  theological  edu¬ 
cation  was  not  perfect.  Still  he  came  of  fighting 
stock,  and  he  was  not  a  man  to  be  cowed  by  any 
opponent.  Besides  he  was  conscious  of  native  logical 
power,  which  is  often  more  efficacious  than  mere  eru¬ 
dition  in  questions  of  this  kind.  He  therefore  ac¬ 
cepted  the  challenge ;  and  the  dispute  lasted  six 
nights.  Once  engaged  in  it,  Father  Hughes  threw 
away  fear,  and  argued  with  great  force  against  the 
proud  divine,  who  tried  to  browbeat  and  bully  him 
from  the  very  beginning. 


CONTROVERSY  WITH  B  RE  CHE  NR  ID  GE.  53 

“  Allow  me,”  said  Dr.  Breckenridge,  “thus  early  in 
the  debate,  to  say  that  nothing  but  the  love  of  liberty 
as  an  American,  and  of  truth  as  a  Protestant  Christian, 
could  induce  me  to  subject  my  feelings  to  the  coarse 
and  ill-bred  impertinence  of  a  priesthood  whose 
temper  and  treatment  toward  other  men  alternate 
between  servility  to  their  sovereigns  and  oppression 
of  their  unhappy  subjects. 

“  I  can  and  will  bear,  for  the  sake  of  the  great  cause, 
whatever  may  be  made  necessary  —  though,  thank 
God,  I  am  not  forced  to  do  it  either  as  a  minion  of  the 
Pope,  or  the  subject  of  a  narrow  and  vulgar  Jesuit¬ 
ism.”  This  insult  roused  the  fighting  blood  of  John 
Hughes.  It  was  dangerous  for  any  antagonist  to 
abuse  him,  or  try  to  be  sarcastic  at  his  expense.  He 
was  a  master  of  irony,  and  could  be  bitterly  sarcastic. 
“  Do  you  not,  sir,  pity  the  gentleman,”  —  he  replied,  in 
a  strong  and  cutting  tone,  his  sturdy  form  erect,  his 
eye  flashing,  and  his  finger  pointing  at  his  opponent,  — 
“  the  Chesterfield  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the 
magister  elegantiarum ,  about  to  be  exposed  to  the 
retorts  of  a  Catholic  priest?” 

His  tone,  his  manner,  his  defiant  look,  drove  Dr. 
Breckenridge  frantic.  He  so  far  forgot  himself  as 
to  call  Father  Hughes  “a  blackguard,  coarse  and 
impertinent.” 

Father  Hughes  replied  with  consummate  sarcasm 
and  great  eloquence.  A  learned  Jesuit  named 


54 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


Kenney  helped  him  in  gathering  the  facts  and  argu¬ 
ments  in  this  controversy ;  but  Bishop  Kenrick, 
naturally  of  a  peaceful  disposition,  never  liked  it, 
and  tried  to  stop  it. 

In  spite  of  the  hard  blows  he  gave  to  the  Pro¬ 
testant  creeds,  Father  Hughes  was  very  popular  with 
the  Protestants  of  Philadelphia,  who  admired  him  for 
his  ability  and  courtesy ;  and  particularly  as  they  were 
Americans,  they  admired  him  for  his  fearlessness  and 
pluck.  His  company  was  much  sought  after  by  the 
prominent  people  of  the  city ;  and  invitations  to 
dinner  were  numerous  on  his  desk.  He  was  such  a 
good  talker,  so  affable  and  so  witty,  that  all  admired 
him.  Pie  would  sing  a  good  song,  too,  if  the  com¬ 
pany  was  select ;  but  at  the  same  time  he  was  always 
a  zealous  pastor  of  souls,  and  a  faithful  administrator 
of  a  parish. 

The  debts  of  his  parish  weighed  heavily  on  him. 
His  people  were  poor ;  he  saw  no  way  out  of  his 
financial  troubles  except  by  seeking  aid  away  from 
home.  He  then  thought  of  Mexico,  where  Catholics 
were  rich ;  and  he  determined  to  go  there  and  seek 
help  for  his  debt-burdened  people.  In  order  to  fit 
himself  for  this  task,  he  applied  himself  to  the  study 
of  Spanish.  But  when  his  loving  flock  heard  of  his 
purpose  to  leave  them,  they  redoubled  their  exer¬ 
tions,  paid  off  all  the  pressing  debts,  and  kept  him 
at  home. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


He  is  made  Coadjutor  to  the  Bishop  of 

New  York. 

The  Catholic  population  in  the  United  States  had 
grown  so  rapidly  that  it  became  necessary  to  increase 
the  number  of  dioceses.  It  was  proposed  to  make 
Pittsburgh  an  episcopal  see,  and  Father  Hughes  was 
named  for  it.  He  was  at  the  same  time  named  as 
one  of  the  three  candidates  for  the  coadjutorship  to 
the  old  bishop  of  New  York,  Dr.  Dubois.  The  other 
two  candidates  were  Father  Mulledy,  a  learned  Jesuit, 
and  Bishop  Kenrick,  the  coadjutor  of  Dr.  Conwell  of 
Philadelphia.  The  choice  of  Dr.  Dubois  was  either 
Father  Mulledy  or  Bishop  Kenrick,  who  wished  to 
get  away  from  Philadelphia,  where  his  relations  with 
the  feeble-minded  old  bishop  were  no  longer  pleasant. 
Dr.  Kenrick  had  even  asked  Rome  for  a  division  of 
the  Philadelphia  diocese,  his  own  transfer  to  the  new 
see  of  Pittsburgh,  and  the  appointment  in  his  place 
of  Father  Hughes  as  coadjutor  to  Bishop  Conwell. 
But  although  Bishop  Kenrick’s  request  was  granted 
by  the  Sacred  Congregation  of  the  Propaganda,  the 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


5* 

Pope,  on  account  of  objections  made  by  Bishop  Eng¬ 
land,  of  Charleston,  refused  to  sanction  the  transfer, 
and  the  whole  plan  miscarried.  Dr.  Kenrick  at  the 
same  time  wrote  to  Rome,  withdrawing  Father 
Hughes’s  name  from  the  list  of  the  candidates  for  the 
See  of  Pittsburgh.  This  gave  rise  to  a  report  that 
Bishop  Kenrick  was  opposed  to  Father  Hughes’s  pro¬ 
motion.  Statements  to  this  effect  found  their  way 
into  the  newspapers,  which  blamed  Bishop  Kenrick 
for  Father  Hughes’s  failure  to  be  made  Bishop  of 
Pittsburgh.  He  at  once  took  notice  of  the  rumours, 
and  wrote  to  Dr.  Kenrick  a  letter  in  which  he 
says :  — 

“  You  could  not  suppose  that  it  would  have  pained  me 
not  to  be  made  Bishop  of  Pittsburgh,  since  you  remember 
that  last  Spring  I  wished  you  to  write  such  a  letter  in  my 
name  and  at  my  request.  I  had  studied  the  inside  as 
well  as  the  outside  of  a  mitre,  and  I  regarded  him  who  is 
obliged  to  wear  it,  as  entitled  to  pity,  not  envy.  I  had, 
if  not  humility,  at  least  sense  enough  to  be  satisfied  that 
the  man  who  is  qualified  and  willing  to  be  a  bishop  in 
the  United  States,  deserves  a  recompense  which  he  may 
not  expect  from  this  ungrateful  world.” 

Shortly  after  the  date  of  this  letter,  the  Council  of 
Baltimore,  on  the  16th  of  April,  1837,  sent  his  name 
with  two  others  to  Rome  for  the  coadjutorship  of 
New  York,  and  on  November  31,  following,  he  received 
notice  of  his  selection  by  the  Pope,  for  that  arduous 


COADJUTOR  TO  BISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK.  57 


office.  A  few  weeks  after  he  told  the  news  to  his 
flock,  who  were  all  in  tears  at  the  thought  of  being 
separated  from  him.  They  had  become  devotedly 
attached  to  him.  His  popularity  was  great  in  the 

whole  city.  Many  of  the  most  prominent  people 

% 

invited  him  to  their  houses,  and  vied  for  the  honour 
of  having  him  spend  his  last  evenings  in  Philadelphia 
with  them.  But  true  to  his  nature,  which  was  sincere, 
and  faithful  to  early  friendship,  he  spent  his  last  nights 
in  Philadelphia  in  the  house  of  a  poor  man  whose 
acquaintance  he  had  made  while  a  day-labourer  at 
Emmittsburg. 

He  was  consecrated  at  New  York,  Jan.  7,  1838, 
in  St.  Patrick’s  Church,  then  the  Cathedral  in  Mott 
Street.  Bishop  Dubois  was  the  consecrating  bishop, 
assisted  by  Bishops  Kenrick,  of  Philadelphia,  and  Fen¬ 
wick,  of  Boston.  The  sermon  was  preached  by  the 
distinguished  Jesuit  Father  Mulledy,  of  Georgetown 
College.  The  new  prelate  received  the  title  of  Bis¬ 
hop  of  Basileopolis  and  Coadjutor  to  the  Bishop  of 
New  York.  Archbishop  McCloskey,  in  the  funeral 
sermon  over  Bishop  Hughes,  thus  eloquently  describes 
him  on  the  day  of  his  consecration  :  — 

“  I  remember  how  all  eyes  were  fixed,  how  all  eyes 
were  strained,  to  get  a  glimpse  of  their  newly  consecrated 
bishop  ;  and  as  they  saw  that  dignified  arid  manly  coun* 
tenance ;  as  they  beheld  those  features  beaming  with  the 
light  of  intellect,  bearing  already  upon  them  the  impress 


JOHN  HUGHES ' 


58 

of  that  force  of  character  which  peculiarly  marked  him 
throughout  his  life,  that  firmness  of  resolution,  that  un¬ 
alterable  and  unbending  will,  and  yet  blending  at  the 
same  time  that  great  benignity  and  suavity  of  expression  ; 
when  they  marked  the  quiet  composure  and  self-posses¬ 
sion  of  every  look  and  every  gesture,  of  his  whole  gait 
and  demeanor,  —  all  hearts  were  drawn  and  warmed  to¬ 
ward  him.  Every  pulse  within  that  vast  assembly,  both 
of  clergy  and  of  laity,  was  quickened  with  a  higher  sense 
of  courage  and  of  hope.  Every  breast  was  filled  with 
joy,  and  as  it  were  with  a  new  and  younger  might.” 

The  diocese  of  New  York  at  that  time  comprised 
the  whole  State  of  New  York  and  about  half  of  New 
Jersey.  The  Catholic  population  in  this  territory 
was  about  two  hundred  thousand.  There  were  forty 
priests  and  about  twenty  churches.  Fifteen  of  these 
priests  and  eight  of  the  churches  were  on  the  Island 
of  Manhattan.  New  York  and  Albany  had  a  few 
parochial  schools,  under  the  charge  of  the  Sisters  of 
Charity.  New  York,  Brooklyn,  Albany,  and  Utica 
had  Catholic  orphan  asylums ;  elsewhere  in  the  dio¬ 
cese  there  was  no  Catholic  institution  of  education  or 
of  charity.  To-day  there  are  eight  bishops,  nearly 
three  hundred  churches,  about  five  hundred  priests, 
and  a  Catholic  population  of  nearly  two  millions  in 
the  territory  once  comprised  in  the  diocese  of  New 
York.  A  college  founded  by  Bishop  Dubois,  at 
Nyack  on  the  Hudson,  in  1833,  was  destroyed  by  fire 
and  never  rebuilt,  as  it  had  not  been  successful. 


COADJUTOR  TO  BISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK.  59 

The  “trustee  system”  flourished  in  all  its  viciousness; 
the  churches  were  deeply  in  debt,  and  the  lay-trustees 
and  the  bishop  were  often  in  open  warfare.  A  schis- 
matical  spirit  had  spread  among  the  Catholics,  who 
were  disunited  and  discouraged.  They  were  chiefly 
of  the  poorer  class  of  emigrants  from  Ireland,  and  the 
degradation  of  the  penal  laws  was  still  evident  in  their 
condition.  The  old  bishop  had  few  natural  ties  of 
sympathy  with  them.  He  was  a  Frenchman,  and  did 
not  understand  the  people  well  enough  to  govern 
them.  He  had  become  paralyzed,  and  was  not  able, 
although  he  was  originally  a  man  of  force  and  cour¬ 
age,  to  sustain  the  conflict  with  “trusteeism  ”  and 
insubordinate  priests.  Gradually  the  whole  admin¬ 
istration  of  the  diocese  fell  on  the  broad  shoulders 
of  the  sturdy  coadjutor,  who  never  feared  a  foe  or 
shunned  a  fight  when  the  interests  of  his  Church, 
of  his  native  land,  or  of  his  adopted  country,  were 
in  question. 

Having  felt  the  want  of  education  in  his  early  days, 
his  first  effort  was  to  establish  a  theological  seminary. 
He  afterward  modified  his  plan  so  as  to  make  it  a 
secular  as  well  as  a  theological  college.  It  was 
opened  Sept.  20,  1838,  at  Lafargeville  in  Jefferson 
County,  under  the  name  of  “  St.  Vincent  de  Paul’s 
Seminary,”  and  placed  under  the  charge  of  three 
priests,  Fathers  Guth,  Moran  (afterward  Vicar- Gen¬ 
eral  of  Newark),  and  Haes,  and  of  three  tutors.  But 


6o 


JOHN  HUGHES . 


Lafargeville  was  too  far  away  from  the  centres  of  pop¬ 
ulation  to  be  suitable  for  a  school ;  so  after  a  short 
experiment  the  seminary  was  closed. 

The  next  thing  that  engaged  his  attention  was  the 
quarrel  between  Bishop  Dubois  and  the  trustees  of 
his  cathedral.  One  of  the  priests  attached  to  it, 
Rev.  Mr.  Levins,  the  same  who  had  criticised  Father 
Hughes’s  letters  to  “  The  Protestant  ”  was  suspended 
for  insubordination ;  but  the  trustees  refused  to  recog¬ 
nize  the  validity  of  the  episcopal  act,  or  to  admit  any 
priest  to  officiate  in  Father  Levins’s  place.  They 
made  him  rector  of  the  parochial  school,  paid  him 
a  salary,  refused  to  pay  his  successor  appointed  by 
the  bishop,  and  threatened  to  cut  off  even  the  bishop’s 
salary,  if  he  would  not  yield  to  their  demands.  Under 
their  instructions,  Levins  expelled  from  the  Sunday- 
school  a  teacher  appointed  by  the  bishop.  The  civil 
law  authorized  the  trustees  to  do  this ;  it  authorized 
them  even  to  bring  in  a  constable  and  expel  a  priest 
from  the  sanctuary  if  they  thought  it  necessary.  Bishop 
Dubois,  usually  very  tenacious  of  his  own  rights,  and 
unwilling  to  give  any  of  his  authority  to  his  coadjutor, 
was  very  glad  to  let  him  fight  this  battle  alone.  The 
young  coadjutor  attacked  the  trustees  and  appealed  to 
the  congregation  against  them.  He  called  a  meeting 
of  the  pewholders  and  thus  addressed  them  :  — 

“Is  it  your  intention  that  such  power  be  exercised  by 
your  trustees  ?  If  so  it  is  almost  time  for  the  ministers 


COADJUTOR  TO  BISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK.  6 1 

of  God  to  forsake  your  temple  and  erect  an  altar  to  their" 
God  around  which  religion  shall  be  free,  the  Council  of 
Trent  fully  recognized,  and  the  laws  of  the  Church  applied 
to  the  government  and  regulation  of  the  Church.” 

It  was  a  question  whether  the  legislature  of  the 
State  or  the  bishop  should  govern  the  Church.  The 
trustees  persisted  in  their  uncanonical  proceedings. 

•  On  Feb.  io,  1839,  they  called  in  a  constable  to 
turn  out  the  bishop’s  Catechist  from  the  cathedral 
Sunday-school.  On  the  Sunday  following,  Bishop 
Hughes  noted  the  fact  from  the  pulpit,  and  de¬ 
manded  an  apology  from  the  trustees;  but  they 
made  none.  On  Sunday,  February  24,  of  the  same 
year,  he  read  from  the  altar  a  pastoral  letter  signed 
by  Bishop  Dubois,  but  written  by  himself,  in  which 
he  called  on  the  people  to  condemn  the  act  of 
their  so-called  representatives,  and  threatened  the 
rebels  with  excommunication.  He  then  called  a 
meeting  of  the  pewholders.  It  was  largely  attended, 
and  the  bishop  made  a  long  speech  in  which  he 
proved  the  right  of  the  Church  authorities  to  appoint 
or  remove  all  those  who  were  to  exercise  spiritual 
functions.  He  showed  that  the  trustees  had  vio¬ 
lated  the  laws  and  the  discipline  of  the  Church 
in  removing  the  bishop’s  Catechist.  He  pointed 
out  the  danger  of  permitting  State  interference  with 
Church  affairs,  and  roused  his  audience  by  an  allu¬ 
sion  which  won  for  him  at  once  their  hearts  and 


62 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


their  approval.  He  spoke  of  the  Irish  penal  laws, 
and  described  the  Church  of  England  as  “a  gilded 
slave  chained  to  the  throne,”  while  Irish  Catholics, 
rather  than  sacrifice  the  freedom  of  their  religion, 
worshipped  in  mountain  solitudes,  or  in  secluded 
valleys,  around  the  priest  upon  whose  head  the 
State  had  set  the  same  price  as  on  the  head  of  a 
wolf.  Would  they  be  false  to  the  traditions  of 
their  loyal  and  self-sacrificing  forefathers ;  or  would 
they  allow  the  State  constable  to  appoint  their  priests 
and  their  teachers  ?  A  ringing  cheer  and  shouts 
of  “  noes  ”  was  the  answer.  A  resolution  condemn¬ 
ing  the  action  of  the  trustees  was  carried  without 
objection ;  and  the  new  election  which  soon  followed 
placed  in  power  a  board  of  trustees  obedient  to  the 
bishop  and  in  perfect  harmony  with  his  will.  This 
victory  broke  the  power  of  the  trustees  in  New  York; 
for  although  from  time  to  time  in  some  churches 
they  gave  trouble,  they  were  never  after  able  to 
oppose  his  authority  or  resist  his  orders  with  success. 
On  March  20,  1839,  he  had  so  completely  defeated 
the  rebels  that  he  wrote  to  his  friend  Mr.  Frenaye, 
in  Philadelphia:  “We  have  brought  the  trustees  so 
low  that  they  are  not  able  to  give  even  a  decent 
kick.” 

Bishop  Dubois  soon  became  unfit  for  duty.  He 
was  paralyzed,  and  his  mind  was  no  longer  sound. 
In  consequence  of  this  condition  of  affairs,  the  Pope 


COADJUTOR  TO  BISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK.  63 

took  away  from  him  all  jurisdiction,  and  transferred 
it  to  Bishop  Hughes.  In  August,  1839,  Archbishop 
Eccleston,  of  Baltimore,  visited  New  York,  bringing 
the  Pope’s  orders.  The  venerable  and  saintly  bishop 
obeyed  them,  although  it  was  a  great  humiliation  for 
him  who  might  be  called  “  the  Father  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Clergy,”  to  have  to  give  up  his  power  to  one 
whom  he  had  known  twenty  years  before  as  a  poor 
Irish  emigrant. 

Bishop  Hughes  was  visiting  the  Northern  part  of 
the  State  when  he  heard  the  news  that  he  had  been 
appointed,  by  the  Holy  See,  Administrator  of  New 
York.  In  this  visitation  he  found  many  interesting 
facts  which  he  often  related  to  his  friends.  For 
instance,  in  Onondaga  County  he  found  a  Catholic 
colony  composed  of  eighteen  converts  from  Protes¬ 
tantism.  There  was  no  priest  nearer  to  them  than 
sixty  miles ;  and  they  owed  their  conversion  to  a 
Catholic  pedler  who.  in  the  year  1836,  spent  a 
night  in  the  house  of  the  head  of  the  colony.  The 
bishop  wrote  an  account  of  this  colony  for  the 
“Annals  of  the  Propagation  of  the  Faith,”  in  the 
year  1840. 

On  October  14,  of  the  same  year,  he  published 
a  pastoral  letter  in  which  he  spoke  of  the  resigna¬ 
tion  of  Bishop  Dubois  in  the  following  sympathetic 
terms : 


t 


64  JOHN  HUGHES. 

■  1  1  x  ‘  -  * 

“  Having  passed  through  more  than  half  a  century  of 
apostolical  labour  and  boundless  as  well  as  untiring  zeal, 
he  was  entitled  at  the  age  of  seventy-six  years,  and  it 
was  natural  for  him  to  seek,  the  privilege  of  repose,  by 
leaving  to  younger  energies  to  take  up  the  burden  which 
he  had  so  long  and  so  zealously  sustained.” 


T 


CHAPTER  VII. 


He  goes  to  Europe.  —  His  Interview  with  O’Con¬ 
nell.  —  His  Great  Controversy  on  the  School 
Question. 

The  zeal  of  the  bishop  increased  with  hia  respon¬ 
sibilities.  His  people  were  poor,  and  his  diocese 
heavily  in  debt.  He  therefore  determined  to  cross 
the  Atlantic,  and  seek  help  from  the  wealthy  Catholics 
of  Europe.  Consequently  he  sailed  for  Havre,  on  the 
16th  of  October,  1839,  in  the  packet  ship  “  Louis 
Philippe.”  It  was  on  this  voyage  that  he  wrote  at 
sea  the  description  of  a  storm.  The  reader  will  find 
the  description  in  the  thirteenth  chapter. 

On  his  arrival  in  Europe,  he  spent  some  time  in 
Paris,  and  was  presented  to  the  king  and  to  the 
royal  family  by  our  ambassador,  Gen.  Lewis  Cass. 
In  January,  1840,  the  bishop  was  in  Rome,  where 
he  remained  nearly  three  months.  The  Pope  treated 
him  with  great  consideration,  and  gave  him  many 
presents.  In  April  of  the  same  year  he  went  to 

5 


66 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


Vienna,  in  Austria,  to  seek  aid  from  the  “  Leopoldine 
Society,”  —  so  named  after  Leopoldina,  Archduchess 
of  Austria,  and  Empress  of  Brazil.  This  society  was 
organized  in  1829,  for  the  promotion  of  Catholic 
missions  m  America.  To  this  society  he  made  an 
address  in  which  he  spoke  of  the  wants  of  his 
diocese.  He  said :  “  There  should  be  one  church, 
at  least,  and  one  pastor  for  every  two  thousand 
souls.”  He  received  a  large  donation  for  his  new 
college  and  seminary  of  St.  John’s,  at  Fordham,  and 
was  welcomed  with  honour  in  the  Austrian  capital. 
Here  he  made  the  acquaintance  of  Monsignore 
Bedini,  who  afterward  came  to  this  country  as 
papal  nuncio.  He  met  also  Marshal  Nugent,  a 
distinguished  Irish  soldier  in  the  service  of  Austria, 
and  the  great  statesman,  Metternich. 

In  May  the  bishop  returned  to  Paris.  Later  he 
went  to  London,  where  he  met  the  Irish  Liberator, 
Daniel  O’Connell.  Both  of  them  soon  afterward 
made  speeches  from  the  same  platform  at  a  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  Catholic  Institute  of  Great  Britain,  in 
London.  The  bishop  in  this  address  gave  a  brief 
sketch  of  the  progress  of  the  Church  in  America. 
In  a  few  days  he  left  England  for  Ireland.  On 
June  1,  1840,  he  writes  from  Dublin:  — 

“  I  am  in  the  capital  of  poor  old  Ireland;  and  they  tell 
me  wonderful  things  of  the  moral  revolution  which  has 
taken  place  on  the  subject  of  temperance.  It  is  remarka- 


6; 


■V  ;  -  / 

ON  THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 

ble  that  this  nation  which  has  been  thought  the  most  in 
need  of  this  reformation,  has  embraced  it  with  a  una¬ 
nimity  and  cordiality  resembling  that  with  which  they 
received  the  Christian  faith.  Already,  I  am  told,  the 
number  is  one  million  and  a  half  of  those  who,  lest  they 
should  violate  the  divine  command  prohibiting  excess, 
have  embraced  the  counsel  to  abstain  altogether.  And 
the  astonishing  fact  has  been  mentioned  to  me  by  high 
authority;  namely,  that  the  Scotch,  who  are  considered 
a  sober  people,  have  been  in  times  past  in  the  habit  of 
consuming,  man  for  man,  nearly  double  the  quantity 
of  spirituous  liquors  that  was  consumed  by  the  Irish. 
This  has  been  established  repeatedly  by  parliamentary 
documents  and  evidence.” 

The  bishop  returned  to  his  diocese  on  July  18, 
and  found  his  flock  engaged  in  a  zealous  effort  to 
change  the  school  system  from  which  they  were 
suffering  in  the  city  and  in  the  State.  The  Catholics 
thought  and  felt  that  there  is  a  radical  defect  in  any 
system  of  education  which  omits  religion.  It  is 
Catholic  belief  that  morality  should  be  taught  in 
the  school,  and  that  morality  cannot  be  separated 
from  religious  doctrine.  Hence,  Catholics  always 
insist  on  having  their  children  instructed  in  the 
creed  of  their  parents ;  and  no  system  of  education 
will  ever  satisfy  them  which  does  not  fulfil  this 
condition.  They  hold  that  morality  depends  on 
dogmatic  teaching;  morality  implies  law,  and  law 
implies  God,  the  legislator  who  is  behind  all  sanction 


\ 


68 


JOHN  HUGH'ES. 


to  law.  The  ten  commandments  are  moral  laws,  every 
one  of  which  rests  on  a  dogmatic  truth,  on  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  God,  on  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  on 
the  inspired  character  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  from 
which  the  Mosaic  and  the  Christian  precepts  are 
taken.  For  Catholics,  therefore,  no  secular  education, 
no  matter  how  perfect,  will  be  satisfactory  unless  ac¬ 
companied  with  religious  instruction.  They  are  as 
much  opposed  to  divorce  between  science  and  religion 
Sn'the  school,  as  to  divorce  between  husband  and  wife 
in  the  family.  Nor  have  Catholics  ever  been  able  to 
understand  why  orthodox  Hebrews  or  orthodox  Pro¬ 
testants  should  not  agree  with  them  in  demanding 
that  the  education  of  children  shall  be  religious  as 
well  as  secular.  It  was  universally  so  in  the  Colonial 

t  /  •  ;  jk 

times,  and  in  the  early  days  of  our  Republic.  The 
schools  in  all  the  thirteen  original  Colonies  were 
religious  and  denominational.  Hence,  as  a  historical 
fact,  the  true  American  system  of  public  education 
was  denominational  and  sectarian;  and  the  attempt 
to  substitute  for  it  a  godless,  infidel,  or  agnostic  sys¬ 
tem,  is  foreign  to  our  republic,  and  contrary  to  all 
the  best  traditions  of  the  country. 

When  Bishop  Hughes  entered  into  the  controversy 
on  the  school  question,  the  Public  School  Society  of 
New  York  professed  to  teach  religion  without  sectarian¬ 
ism.  This  he  considered  a  most  illogical  proceeding. 
He  wrote  to  the  gentlemen  who  formed  the  society : 


ON  THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION 


69 


“  If  you  exclude  all  sects,  you  exclude  Christianity. 
Take  away  the  distinctive  dogmas  of  the  Catholics, 
the  Baptists,  the  Methodists,  the  Presbyterians  and  so 
on,  and  you  have  nothing  left  but  deism.”  Even  the 
reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  schools  is  an  act  of  sec¬ 
tarianism.  There  is  a  dispute  among  the  sects  as  to 
which  version  is  correct.  On  this  question,  Catholics 
and  Protestants  are  radically  divided.  If  you  read 
the  New  Testament,  you  insult  the  Hebrew  children, 
and  if  you  leave  it  out  of  the  Bible  you  ignore  the 
Christians.  No  matter  how  homoeopathically  small  the 
dose  of  religion  you  give  the  children,  it  will  be  always 
sectarian. 

But  while  the  public  schools  of  those  days  professed 
to  be  non-sectarian,  they  were  really  Protestant  insti¬ 
tutions,  used  to  pervert  Catholics.  The  Protestant 
version  of  the  Bible  used  in  them  was  King  James’s, 
which  Catholics  hold  to  be  incomplete  and  false.  It 
was  read  every  morning  in  the  presence  of  the  Catholic 
children ;  and  the  teachers,  who  were  all  Protestants, 
made  comments  on  the  text  unfriendly  and  insulting 
to  Catholic  convictions.  *  Protestant  hymns  were  sung, 
and  Protestant  prayers,  expressing  Protestant  doctrines, 
were  recited.  The  whole  tendency  of  this  system  of 
education  was  to  make  Catholic  children  indifferent 
to  their  religion  or  apostates  from  it. 

The  Catholic  clergy  and  laity  therefore  opposed 
these  schools,  and  began  to  establish  the  present 


7© 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


parochial  system  of  education.  In  spite  of  their 
poverty  they  built  parochial  schools.  If  they  were 
unable  to  build,  they  opened  schools  in  the  basements 
of  their  churches.  In  1840  the  number  of  children 
attending  these  schools  was  about  five  thousand,  out 
of  the  ten  thousand  children  of  school-age.  Many 
of  these  attended  the  public  schools  with  great 
peril  to  their  faith;  others  did  not  go  to  school 
at  all. 

'Before  the  bishop’s  return  from  Europe,  a  priest  of 
Albany  wrote  to  the  Vicar- General  of  New  York,  Dr. 
Power,  Rector  of  St.  Peter’s  Church  in  Barclay  Street, 
telling  him  that  he  thought  the  Catholics  could  get 
some  of  the  general  school  fund  by  petitioning  the 
legislature.  Some  of  the  members  of  it  had  expressed 
views  friendly  to  Catholic  claims  for  a  share  of  the 
money  raised  by  taxation  for  school  purposes,  and 
considered  it  unjust  that  Catholics  should  have  to  pay 
a  double  tax  for  education,  —  one  imposed  by  law  for 
the  public  schools,  and  the  other  by  conscience  for  the 
parochial  schools.  Dr.  Power  called  a  meeting  of  the 
trustees  of  the  city  Churches,  who  discussed  the  mat¬ 
ter.  At  their  suggestion,  he  went  to  Albany  and  found 
even  the  governor,  William  H.  Seward,  in  favour  of 
the  Catholic  claims.  He  even  spoke  of  them  favour¬ 
ably  in  his  annual  message.  It  was,  however,  judged 
wiser  to  petition  the  Common  Council  of  the  city, 
than  the  legislature  of  the  State.  The  petition  was 


ON  THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION.  71 

sent,  but  the  Common  Council  rejected  it.  Meetings 
of  the  Catholics  were  held  in  the  city  to  further  the 
object  of  the  petition  ;  but,  eventually,  small,  self-seek¬ 
ing  ward-politicians,  who  have  ever  been  the  bane  of 
Catholic  movements  in  our  cities,  got  control  of  these 
assemblies,  and  injured  rather  than  helped  the  cause 
of  Catholic  education  and  of  the  parochial  schools. 

When  the  bishop  saw  the  condition  of  things,  he  at 
once  assumed  the  leadership  of  the  movement.  On 
the  second  day  after  his  return,  one  of  these  meetings 
was  held.  He  went  to  it,  and  told  the  people  that  he 
had  taken  measures  “  that  all  politics  should  be  ex¬ 
cluded.”  He  made  a  masterly  speech,  dethroned  the 
politicians,  and  was  at  once  recognized  by  both  priests 
and  people  as  their  leader  in  furthering  a  measure 
which  being  of  a  purely  religious  character  was  above 
party  politics.  “  Politics,”  said  he,  “  must  not  be 
introduced  :  first,  for  the  perhaps  insignificant  reason 
that  if  they  be  introduced  I  disappear  from  among 
you ;  and,  secondly,  for  the  very  important  one  that 
your  prospects  would  thereby  be  defeated.  If  you 
have  any  regard  then  for  my  feelings  or  your  own 
interests,  do  not  introduce  politics.  We  do  not  meet 
for  political  purposes.  I  defy  our  enemies  or  our 
friends  to  show  that  one  word  of  politics  was  ever 
tolerated  in  our  meetings.  I  trust,  therefore,  that  it 
will  be  after  I  have  received  notice  to  retire,  that 
politics  will  be  introduced.”  The  bishop  was  always 


V 


72  JOHN  HUGHES . 

present  and  spoke  at  the  meetings  which  were  held 
every  fortnight  in  the  basement  of  St.  James’s  Church. 
On  August  10  he  published  an  address  of  the  Roman 
Catholics  to  their  fellow-citizens  of  the  City  and  State 
of  New  York.  In  this  document  copious  reasons  for 
the  opposition  of  Catholics  to  the  public  schools  were 
given.  The  following  is  the  strongest  part  of  the 
document,  as  written  by  the  bishop  :  — 

“  Besides  the  introduction  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  with¬ 
out  note  or  comment,  with  the  prevailing  theory  that  from 
these  even  children  are  to  get  their  notions  of  religion, 
contrary  to  our  principles,  there  are  in  the  class-books  of 
those  schools  false  (as  we  believe)  historical  statements 
respecting  the  men  and  things  of  past  times,  calculated 
to  fill  the  minds  of  our  children  with  errors  of  fact,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  excite  in  them  prejudice  against  the 
religion  of  their  parents  and  guardians.  These  passages 
were  not  considered  as  sectarian,  in  as  much  as  they  had 
been  selected  as  reading  lessons,  and  were  not  in  favour 
of  any  particular  sect,  but  merely  against  the  Catholics. 
We  feel  it  is  unjust  that  such  passages  should  be  taught, 
at  all  in  schools  to  the  support  of  which  we  are  contrib¬ 
utors  as  well  as  others.  But  that  such  books  should  be 
put  into  the  hands  of  our  own  children,  and  that,  in  part, 
at  our  own  expense,  was  in  our  opinion  unjust,  unnatural, 
and  at  all  events  to  us  intolerable.  Accordingly  through 
very  great  additional  sacrifices,  we  have  been  obliged  to 
provide  schools,  lender  our  churches  and  elsewhere,  in 
which  to  educate  our  children  as  our  conscientious  duty 
required.  This  we  have  done,  to  the  number  of  somer 


ON  THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


73 


thousands,  for  several  years  past,  during  all  of  which  time 
we  have  been  obliged  to  pay  taxes ;  and  we  feel  it  unjust 
and  oppressive  that  while  we  educate  our  children  as  well, 
we  contend,  as  they  would  be  at  the  public  schools,  we 
are  denied  our  portion  of  the  school  fund,  simply  because 
we,  at  the  same  time,  endeavour  to  train  them  up  in  prin¬ 
ciples  of  virtue  and  religion.  This  we  feel  to  be  unjust 
and  unequal,  for  we  pay  taxes  in  proportion  to  our  num¬ 
bers,  as  other  citizens. 

“  We  are  supposed  to  be  from  one  hundred  thousand 
to  two  hundred  thousand  in  the  State.  And  although 
most  of  us  are  poor,  still  the  poorest  man  among  us  is 
obliged  to  pay  taxes,  from  the  sweat  of  his  brow,  in  the 
rent  of  his  room  or  little  tenement.  Is  it  not,  then,  unjust 
and  hard  that  such  a  man  cannot  have  the  benefit  of 
education  for  his  child  without  sacrificing  the  rights  of 
his  religion  and  conscience?  He  sends  his  child  to  a 
school,  under  the  protection  of  the  Church,  in  which  these 
rights  will  be  secure ;  but  he  has  to  support  the  public 
school  also.  In  Ireland,  he  was  compelled  to  support  a 
Church  hostile  to  his  religion,  and  here  he  is  compelled 
to  support  schools  in  which  his  religion  fares  but  little 
better,  and  to  support  his  own  school  besides. 

“  Is  this  the  state  of  things,  fellow-citizens,  and  especially 
Americans,  —  is  this  the  state  of  things  worthy  of  you, 
worthy  of  our  country,  worthy  of  our  just  and  glorious 
constitution  ?  Put  yourself  in  the  poor  man’s  place,  and 
say  whether  you  would  not  despise  him  if  he  did  not 
labour  by  every  lawful  means  to  emancipate  himself  from 
this  bondage  ?  He  has  to  pay  double  taxation  for  the  edu¬ 
cation  of  his  child,  —  one  to  the  misinterpreted  law  of  the 
land,  and  another  to  his  conscience.  He  sees  his  child 


74 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


going  to  school  with  perhaps  the  fragment  of  a  worn-out 
book,  the  child,  thinly  clad,  and  its  bare  feet  on  the  frozen 
pavement;  whereas,  if  he  had  his  rights  he  could  im¬ 
prove  the  clothing,  he  could  get  better  books,  and  have 
his  child  better  taught  than  it  is  possible  under  actual 
circumstances. 

“Nothing  can  be  more  false  than  some  statements  of 
our  motives  which  have  been  put  forth  against  us.  It 
has  been  asserted  that  we  seek  our  share  of  the  school 
funds  for  the  support  and  advance  of  our  religion.  We 
beg  to  assure  you  with  respect,  that  we  would  scorn  to 
support  or  advance  our  religion  at  any  other  than  our 
own  expense.  But  we  are  unwilling  to  pay  taxes  for 
the  purpose  of  destroying  our  religion  in  the  minds  of 
our  children.  This  points  out  the  sole  difference  between 
what  we  seek  and  what  some  narrow-minded  or  misin¬ 
formed  journals  have  accused  us  of  seeking. 

“The  cold  indifference  with  which  it  is  required  that 
all  religion  shall  be  treated  in  those  schools ;  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  without  note  or  comment;  the  selection  of  passages 
as  reading  lessons  from  Protestant  and  prejudiced  authors 
on  points  in  which  our  creed  is  supposed  to  be  involved ; 
the  comments  of  the  teacher,  of  which  the  commissioners 
cannot  be  cognizant ;  the  school  libraries,  stuffed  with 
sectarian  works  against  us,  —  form  against  our  religion  a 
combination  of  influences  prejudicial  to  our  religion,  and 
to  whose  action  it  would  be  criminal  in  us  to  expose  our 
children  at  such  an  age.” 

A  few  weeks  later  he  sent  to  the  Board  of  Aldermen 
of  New  York  a  petition  containing  the  substance  of 
this  address,  and  asked  a  share  of  the  school  funds 


ON  THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


75 


for  eight  parochial  schools  then  flourishing  in  the  city. 
The  Public  School  Society  strongly  opposed  him,  and 
sent  a  “  Remonstrance  ”  in  opposition  to  the  Cath¬ 
olics’  petition.  The  Methodist  clergy  objected  in 
a  body ;  and  the  Press  raised  the  cry  of  “  No  Popery.” 
The  bishop,  nothing  daunted,  appeared  before  the 
aldermen  to  plead  in  person  for  what  he  considered 
“the  cause  of  the  poor  and  the  oppressed.”  A 

I  y, 

lawyer  was  engaged  to  help  him,  but  became  ill,  and 
the  bishop  had  to  fight  the  battle  alone.  He  was 
opposed  by  two  prominent  lawyers,  Theodore  Sedg¬ 
wick  and  Hiram  Ketchum,  who  represented  the  cor¬ 
poration  then  known  as  “  The  Public  School  Society.” 
The  Rev.  Drs.  Bond, ‘Bangs,  and  Reese  appeared 

for  the  Methodists ;  Rev.  Dr.  Spring  for  the  Pres- 

%  > 

byterians ;  and  Rev.  Dr.  Knox  for  the  Dutch  Re¬ 
formed.  All  the  sects  were  united  in  opposing  the 
Catholic  claims.  On  the  day  of  the  debate  the  City 
Hall  was  thronged  by  crowds  of  citizens  deeply  in¬ 
terested  in  the  discussion.  When  the  “  Remon¬ 
strance  ”  of  the  Public  School  Society  and  of  the 
Methodists  had  been  read,  Bishop  Hughes  rose  and 
in  a  speech  which  lasted  three  hours,  dissected  the 
arguments  of  his  opponents,  and  eloquently  urged 
the  justice  of  the  Catholic  cause.  Mr.  Sedgwick  and 
Mr.  Ketchum  sharply  replied.  On  September  30 
the  debate  was  resumed.  Doctors  Bond,  Reese, 
Knox,  Bangs,  and  Spring,  in  prepared  speeches,  at- 


76 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


tacked  the  Catholic  petition.  All  the  Protestant 
churches  were  up  in  arms  and  sustained  the  Public 
School  Society.  The  reverend  gentlemen,  instead  of 
confining  themselves  to  the  subject  of  discussion, 
ravelled  over  the  whole  field  of  theological  contro¬ 
versy,  and  raked  out  of  the  buried  past  every  charge 
that  could  be  made  against  the  Catholic  Church. 
The  bishop  in  reply  was  obliged  to  follow  them.  He 
had  no  time  for  preparation,  yet  in  a  masterly  speech 
of  three  hours  and  a  half,  with  a  vehemence  and  a 
force  and  a  logic  never  surpassed,  he  fought  for  his 
creed,  refuted  the  charges  against  it,  urged  again  the 
justice  of  the  Catholic  petition,  and  concluded  amid 
a  storm  of  applause  in  which  even  his  enemies  joined. 
The  Public  School  Society  began  to  feel  that  its  posi¬ 
tion  was  untenable.  It  offered  to  compromise,  agreed 
to  submit  the  school  books  to  the  bishop  for  expur¬ 
gation,  and  even  to  buy  the  parochial  schools  built 
by  the  Catholics.  But  the  bishop  would  not  accept 
the  terms  or  their  compromise.  He  determined  to 
sacrifice  nothing.  He  did  not  however  gain  the  ob¬ 
ject  of  his  petition.  It  was  rejected  on  Jan.  12,  1841, 
by  the  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen ;  and  the 
whole  board,  with  one  exception,  confirmed  the  action 
of  its  committee. 

The  bishop  then  called  a  meeting  of  Catholics  to 
be  held  in  Washington  Hall  on  February  11.  The 
hall  was  crowded  with  an  enthusiastic  audience,  which 


THE  SCHOOL  CONTROVERSY. 


77 


cheered  the  bishop  as  he  entered.  He  made  a 
speech  in  which  he  called  attention  to  the  narrow¬ 
mindedness  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen.  He  urged 
the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  present  a  memo¬ 
rial  to  the  legislature.  This  was  done  and  the 
memorial  was  presented  to  Hon.  John  C.  Spencer, 
Secretary  of  State  and  ex-officio  superintendent  of 
public  schools.  This  official  reported  his  views  soon 
niter,  and  recommended  to  the  legislature  a  change 
in  the  school  system  of  New  York  City.  This  change 
was  intended  to  destroy  the  sectarian  character  of 
the  corporation  known  as  the  “  Public  School  Society 
of  New  York,”  to  weaken  its  power,  to  abridge  its 
privileges,  and  bring  it  directly  under  the  control  of 
the  people  of  the  city.  The  change  was  a  step 
toward  the  present  public  school  system  of  the 
State. 

This  controversy  brought  the  bishop  into  friendly 
relations  with  Governor  Seward,  a  broad-minded  and 
liberal  statesman  who  held  the  Catholic  views  as  to 
the  necessity  of  Christian  education,  and  with  Mr. 
Thurlow  Weed,  afterward  a  distinguished  politician 
of  the  Republican  party.  Bishop  Hughes’s  friendship 
with  these  men,  and  the  active  part  which  he  took 
in  the  “  School  Question,”  was  the  occasion  of  his 
being  accused  of  meddling  in  politics  and  of  being 
a.  political  intriguer.  This,  however,  he  never  was. 
But  the  politicians,  and  particularly  the  professional 


78 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


“  Catholic  ”  politicians,  who  saw  and  dreaded  the 
hold  which  he  had  acquired  over  the  masses  of  the 
people,  thought  to  deter  him  from  the  use  of  his 
power  by  calling  him  a  politician.  They  misrepre¬ 
sented  his  simplest  actions.  He  had  to  go  to  Al¬ 
bany  to  administer  Confirmation  the  day  after  the 
debate  in  the  Common  Council,  and  from  Albany 
to  Troy  to  visit  the  Churches  there.  When  he  re¬ 
turned  to  New  York,  he  found  that  a  story  was  cir¬ 
culated  that  he  had  been  dining  with  the  aldermen, 
and  that  some  of  them  had  made  a  bargain  with 
him  to  vote  for  the  Catholic  petition,  provided  he 
would  go  to  Albany  and  get  the  Catholics  to  vote 
against  Governor  Seward. 

In  spite  of  defeat,  the  bishop  did  not  cease  from 
his  crusade  in  favour  of  Christian  education. 

On  the  16th,  17th,  and  21st  of  June,  in  Carroll 
Hall,  he  made  three  speeches  reviewing  Mr.  Ketchum’s 
argument  and  the  objections  of  the  Public  School 
Society  against  the  Catholic  petition.  Among  the 
audience  on  these  occasions  were  Lieutenant-Gov¬ 
ernor  Bradish  and  many  of  the  State  senators. 

The  question  was  brought  before  the  Senate  at 
Albany  and  there  hotly  debated.  The  Catholic 
claims  were  assailed  by  every  argument  that  preju¬ 
dice  or  bigotry  could  suggest.  The  Press  helped 
the  rich  and  powerful  Public  School  Society.  The 
“  Journal  of  Commerce,”  on  the  day  before  the  sub- 


THE  SCHOOL  CONTROVERSY. 


79 


ject  was  to  come  up  in  the  Senate,  published  a  long 
screed  containing  all  the  old  charges  against  “  Popery,” 
and  among  them  the  fictitious  bull  of  excommuni¬ 
cation  which  Sterne,  as  a  joke,  inserted  in  “  Tristram 
Shandy.”  The  agent  of  the  Public  School  So¬ 
ciety  placed  on  the  desk  of  each  senator  a  copy  of 
this  paper  with  the  article  marked.  The  calumny 
was  successful.  The  senators  were  frightened  and 
postponed  the  vote  on  the  memorial  until  January, 
1842.  Thus  even  the  strongest  minds  are  sometimes 
frightened  away  from  the  path  of  justice  by  the 
scarecrow  of  an  old  calumny. 


/ 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Close  of  the  School  Controversy. 

While  the  Catholics  were  being  assailed  in  the 
Press  and  in  the  legislature,  for  presuming  to  protest 
against  the  sectarian  monopoly  known  as  the  “  Public 
School  Society,”  the  bishop  continued  his  work  among 
the  Churches  of  his  diocese,  administering  confirma¬ 
tion  and  fostering  charities  for  the  protection  of  or¬ 
phans  and  waifs ;  but  he  did  not  discontinue  his  war¬ 
fare  against  the  rich  school  monopoly  in  the  city.  The 
question  had  now  become  one  of  politics  as  well  as  one 
of  religion.  A  political  contest  was  forced  upon  him 
against  his  will  or  his  inclinations.  The  organs  of  the 
Public  School  Society  had  tried,  previous  to  the  fall 
election,  to  inflame  the  minds  of  Protestant  voters 
against  him.  He  was  denounced  as  a  Jesuit,  an  in¬ 
triguer,  opposed  to  free  institutions,  to  a  Republican 
form  of  government,  and  the  foe  of  “  free  schools,  the 
palladium  of  our  liberties.”  All  the  clap-trap  non¬ 
sense  of  the  unfrocked  monk  or  of  the  expelled  nun 
who  had  been  sent  away  from  her  convent,  all  the 


CLOSE  oF  THE  SCHOOL  CONTROVERSY.  8 1 

stale  calumnies  of  the  past,  were  daily  published  by 
so-called  respectable  newspapers,  and  used  as  lawful 
weapons  against  the  “  Romish  ”  bishop.  Candidates 
for  office  were  threatened ;  they  were  compelled  to 
pledge  themselves  to  vote  against  granting  the  Catho¬ 
lic  petition.  Every  attempt  was  made  to  frighten 
even  the  bishop.  His  life  was  menaced ;  anony¬ 
mous  writers  made  menaces ;  the  Press  was  full  of 
denunciation,  and  spread-eagle  orators  hurled  anath¬ 
emas  at  him  from  the  stump.  But  his  courage  rose 
higher  with  every  attack.  His  answer  to  all  the 
threats  was  an  attempt  to  form  a  distinct  Catholic 
party.  The  time  was  short  before  the  elections,  but 
he  would  try  to  influence  them. 

Consequently,  on  October  29,  four  days  before  the 
election,  the  bishop  called  his  people  to  meet  him,  at 
Carroll  Hall.  They  came  in  crowds,  and  at  his  sug¬ 
gestion  nominated  a  full  list  of  candidates  friendly  to 
the  Catholic  petition.  He  made  an  eloquent  speech 
in  favour  of  the  ticket.  He  never  was  more  in  ear¬ 
nest  ;  all  his  powers  were  roused  to  the  highest  pitch. 

Now,”  said  he,  in  calm,  deliberate  tones  that  in¬ 
creased  in  volume  as  he  spoke,  “  if  you  are  unani¬ 
mously  determined  to  convince  this  community  that 
you  are  in  earnest,  that  you  sincerely  feel  that  there  is 
a  bona-fide  grievance  of  which  you  complain,  you  will 
support  the  candidates  thus  offered  for  your  choice ; 
because  if  you  do  not,  you  have  no  alternative  left 

6 


8  2 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


but  that  of  voting  for  the  declared  enemies  of  your 
rights.  You  have  often  voted  for  others,  and  they 
did  not  vote  for  you ;  but  now  you  are  determined  to 
uphold  with  your  own  votes  your  own  rights.  Will 
you  then  stand  by  the  rights  of  your  offspring,  who 
have  so  long  suffered  under  the  operation  of  this  in¬ 
jurious  system?  Will  you  adhere  to  the  nominations 
made?”  The  answer  was  loud  cheers  and  cries  of, 
“  We  will!  we  will !  ”  “Will  you  be  united?”  At 
this  point  the  whole  audience  rose  to  their  feet, 
cheered,  waved  handkerchiefs,  and  cried  out  that  they 
would  stand  by  him  to  the  last.  “  Will  you  let  all 
men  see  that  you  are  worthy  sons  of  the  nation  to 
which  you  belong?”  “Never  fear;  we  will!  We 
will  till  death  !  ”  was  the  answer.  “Will  none  of  you 
flinch?”  he  cried  with  emphasis  and  flashing  eye. 
The  reply  to  this  question  was  a  great  shout  of,  “We 
will  not !  ”  The  people,  wild  with  excitement,  rose 
and  cheered  so  long  and  so  loud  that  he  could  not 
continue  his  speech  for  several  minutes.  “  I  care  not 
for  party  men,”  he  cried,  with  a  contemptuous  wave 
of  the  hand ;  “  bring  them  to  the  test,  and  you  find 
great  promises,  lean  performances.  It  is  time  that 
you  should  convince  them  that  you  are  not  the  pliant 
body  they  mistake  you  to  be.  You  will  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  men  who  go  to  the  Senate  and  Assem¬ 
bly  pledged  to  act  against  you?”  “No,  no,  no! 
That  we  won't !  ”  replied  the  audience.  “  I  ask  then,” 


CLOSE  OF  THE  SCHOOL  CONTROVERSY.  83 

said  he,  in  conclusion,  “  once  for  all,  —  and  with  the 
answer  let  the  meeting  close, — will  this  meeting 
pledge  its  honour,  as  the  representative  of  the  portion 
of  our  oppressed  community  for  whom  I  have  so 
often  pleaded,  here  as  elsewhere,  —  will  it  pledge  its 
honour  that  it  will  stand  by  these  candidates  whose 
names  have  been  read,  and  that  no  man  composing 
this  vast  audience  will  ever  vote  for  any  one  pledged  to 
oppose  our  just  claims  and  incontrovertible  rights  !  ” 
The  meeting  pledged  itself  as  he  wished,  and  then 
adjourned. 

Of  course  the  politicians  trembled,  fretted,  and 
raved  at  the  bishop’s  actions.  They  felt  that  a  master¬ 
mind  and  a  master-hand  was  at  work,  —  a  man  who 
despised  trickery,  who  had  courage  enough  to  expose 
it,  and  force  enough  to  trample  on  it.  They  were 
jealous  of  the  hold  he  had  on  the  affections  of  the 
Catholic  population.  He  could  sway  them  as  he 
willed,  and  no  one  since  or  before  has  ever  had  such 
power  over  them. 

The  politicians  abused  him  for  violating  what  they 
called  the  laws  of  “  propriety ;  ”  although  they  habitu¬ 
ally  violated  laws  more  important  than  those  of  pro¬ 
priety.  From  1840  to  1844  Bishop  Hughes  was 
the  most  popular,  and  at  the  same  time  the  best 
abused,  man  in  the  United  States.  He  was  popular 
with  all  good  and  fair-minded  citizens,  unpopular  with 
the  dishonest,  the  untruthful,  and  the  bigoted. 


84 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


When  the  election  came  off  in  November,  the  po¬ 
liticians  were  amazed  to  find  that  the  “  Catholic  ” 
party,  although  it  had  no  time  for  perfect  organiza¬ 
tion,  polled  two  thousand  two  hundred  votes.  This 
result  showed  that  the  Catholics,  if  properly  managed, 
would  act  independently  in  regard  to  any  question 
which  affected  their  rights  or  their  consciences.  Their 
vote  was  very  large  considering  that  their  ticket  had 
been  only  four  days  in  the  field.  Governor  Seward, 
always  friendly  to  the  Catholic  claims,  had  been  at¬ 
tacked  for  his  sympathy  with  them.  He  wrote  to 
Bishop  Hughes,  a  few  days  after  the  election  :  — 

“  It  is  your  fortune  as  well  as  mine  that  philanthropic 
conceptions  for  the  improvement  of  society  come  in  con¬ 
flict  with  existing  interests  founded  in  existing  preju¬ 
dices.  I  have  noticed  several  very  gratifying  indications 
of  a  determination  among  your  people  to  vindicate  and 
sustain  you.  If  this  should  be  the  case,  you  will  see 
henceforth  a  rapid  transition  among  the  people  at  large. 
The  session  of  the  legislature  approaches.  I  will  say  to 
you,  with  all  freedom,  that  I  propose  to  assert  my  opinions 
and  principles  with  firmness,  and  to  submit  the  subject 
of  the  educational  system  to  the  direct  action  of  the  legis¬ 
lature.  May  I  not  hope  that  your  concern  on  that  great 
subject  will  induce  you  to  accede  to  my  wishes  by  making 
me  a  brief  visit  before  the  close  of  navigation  ?  ” 

Some  of  the  professional  politicians  of  New  York, 
who  then  as  now  had  the  name  of  being  Catholics 


CLOSE  OF  THE  SCHOOL  CONTROVERSY.  85 

without  being  so  in  reality,  tried  to  turn  public  opin¬ 
ion  against  the  bishop ;  but  the  true  Catholics  of  his 
diocese  stood  stoutly  by  him.  They  held  a  meeting 
in  Washington  Hall,  November  16,  at  which  they 
expressed  their  “  unwavering  confidence  in  his  zeal, 
judgment,  and  acknowledged  ability,”  and  testified 
“  to  the  respect  which  his  fearless,  independent,  and 
judicious  course  in  relation  to  the  subject  of  educa¬ 
tion  had  excited  in  their  minds.” 

Governor  Seward,  true  to  his  promise,  urged  the 
school  question  on  the  attention  of  the  legislature, 
in  his  message  of  January,  1842.  Some  of  the 
politicians  became  at  once  alarmed.  It  was  ru¬ 
moured  that  the  Irish  Catholics  were  deserting  the 
Loco-foco  party  and  would  go  over  to  the  Whigs. 
Some  of  the  newspapers  charged  the  bishop  with 
attempting  to  form  a  Catholic  party  in  politics ;  but 
he  had  no  such  intention,  although  the  school  ques¬ 
tion  continued  to  be  agitated.  At  length  the  legis¬ 
lature  attempted  to  compromise,  and  for  this  purpose 
abolished  the  old  school  system  and  established  a  new 
one  of  a  less  sectarian  character.  Yet  the  compro¬ 
mise  was  a  failure,  and  has  never  satisfied  Catholics. 
Their  claim  has  always  been  for  distinctly  religious  edu¬ 
cation  in  the  school,  and  that  education  belongs  to  the 
parents  and  not  to  the  State.  When  the  State  assumes 
the  role  of  a  schoolmaster,  it  usurps  parental  rights, 
assumes  spiritual  functions,  and  interferes  with  the 
conscience  of  the  individual. 


86 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


In  the  fall  elections  of  this  year  a  riot  took  place 
at  the  polls  in  the  sixth  ward.  An  anti-Catholic  mob 
marched  to  the  bishop’s  house  in  Mulberry  Street, 
broke  his  windows,  and  ran  away;  fortunately  for 
the  mob  the  bishop  was  out  of  town.  Had  he  been 
at  home  and  heard  of  their  coming,  they  would  have 
had  a  warm  reception. 

The  old  Public  School  Society  died  after  a  fight  of 
two  years  with  the  bishop,  and  the  schools  under  its 
control  passed  over  to  the  management  of  the  new 
Board  of  Education.  The  bishop,  although  not  satis¬ 
fied  with  the  half  victory  which  he  had  won,  thought 
it  wiser  to  discontinue  the  controversy,  and  set  about 
building  up  a  system  of  parochial  schools  sustained  by 
the  voluntary  contributions  of  the  faithful.  In  1843 
he  convoked  the  priests  of  Brooklyn  and  New  York, 
in  the  cathedral  in  Mulberry  Street,  and  read  to  them 
an  address  in  which  he  urged  them  to  redouble  their 
efforts  “to  diffuse  true  education  among  the  children 
of  their  flocks.” 

He  had  already  tried  to  give  an  impetus  to  higher 
Catholic  education.  In  1840  he  had  removed  the 
ecclesiastical  seminary  from  Lafargeville  to  Fordham, 
where  St.  John’s  College  was  opened  in  June,  1841. 
He  bought  the  estate  of  Rose  Hill,  at  Fordham,  where 
the  college  is,  for  thirty  thousand  dollars.  The  first 
president  of  this  college  was  Rev.  John  McCloskey, 
afterward  Cardinal- Archbishop  of  New  York.  In 


CLOSE  OF  THE  SCHOOL  CONTROVERSY.  87 

1841,  Bishop  Hughes  brought  over  from  France  a 
colony  of  the  Ladies  of  the  Sacred  Heart,  who 
founded,  at  Manhattanville,  an  academy  whose 
branches  have  since  spread  through  the  city  and 
State.  The  first  superioress  of  the  Manhattanville 
Academy  was  Madame  Elizabeth  Galitzin,  a  Russian 
princess,  and  cousin  of  Prince  Demetrius  Augustine 
Galitzin,  who  became  a  priest,  gave  up  home  and 
country,  and  spent  years  in  missionary  labours  among 
the  Alleghany  Mountains.  The  Galitzins  were  bom 
in  St.  Petersburg,  and  were  converts  from  the  Russian 
Church. 

The  bishop  also  made  about  this  time  an  unsuc¬ 
cessful  effort  to  bring  over  a  colony  of  “  Christian 
Brothers  ”  from  Ireland  to  assume  control  of  the  pa¬ 
rochial  male  schools  of  the  diocese.  The  controversy 
on  the  school  question  had  made  him  realize  more 
fully  than  ever  the  necessity  of  good  Catholic  schools, 
both  for  the  poor  and  for  the  rich,  and  he  bent  all 
his  energies  to  give  his  flock  the  full  benefit  of  a  sound 
Christian  education. 


Ur 

A' 

•  V' 


CHAPTER  IX. 

First  Diocesan  Synod  of  New  York.  —  The  Con> 

TROVERSY  WITH  DAVID  HALE  AND  THE  TRUSTEES 

of  St.  Louis  Church,  Buffalo.  —  Bishop  Mc- 
Closkey  appointed  Coadjutor.  —  The  Native 
American  Excitement,  and  Mayor  Harper. 

In  1841  there  was  a  debt  of  $300,000  on  the  ten 
Catholic  Churches  of  New  York  City.  This  was  con¬ 
sidered  at  that  time  a  very  heavy  debt.  It  was  not 
equally  distributed.  St.  Peter’s,  in  Barclay  Street,  had 
so  large  a  share  of  it  that  the  corporation  was  almost 
bankrupt.  The  bishop  was  annoyed  by  this  condi¬ 
tion  of  affairs,  and  thought  to  remedy  it  by  trying  to 
unite  all  the  Catholics  of  the  city  into  an  organiza¬ 
tion  for  the  payment  of  the  Church  debts,  and  thus 
to  relieve  the  parishes  that  were  in  the  greatest  finan¬ 
cial  danger.  The  Catholic  population  of  the  city  was 
then  from  sixty  to  eighty  thousand  souls.  The  bishop 
called  a  meeting  of  them  in  Carroll  Hall,  on  May  3, 
1841,  and  proposed  the  plan  of  a  “Church  Debt 
Association.”  Seven  of  the  ten  Churches  joined  it;, 
and  in  the  course  of  a  year  $17,000  were  collected 


FIRST  DIOCESAN  SYNOD  OF  NEW  YORK.  89 

by  the  society.  But  the  masses  of  the  people  had 
no  zeal  in  the  enterprise ;  so  at  the  end  of  the  year 
the  association  was  disbanded,  leaving  many  of  the 
Churches  still  heavily  embarrassed. 

On  the  29th  of  August  of  the  same  year  he  con¬ 
voked  the  first  Catholic  Synod  of  New  York.  The 
clergy  met  at  the  cathedral,  and  during  three  days’ 
deliberation  enacted  many  laws,  some  of  them  against 
hasty  marriages  and  secret  societies.  The  secret  so¬ 
cieties  which  entrapped  the  poor  Irish  emigrants,  and 
divided  them  into  factions  hostile  to  one  another,  were 
specially  condemned  and  denounced.  These  socie¬ 
ties  were  numerous  among  the  railroad  labourers, 
then  chiefly  Irish,  throughout  the  country,  and  took 
names  from  the  different  provinces  of  Ireland.  The 
“  Far  Downs,”  the  “  Corkonians,”  and  the  “  Con- 
naughtmen,”  as  some  of  these  quarrelsome  societies 
were  called,  although  shunned  and  abhorred  by  the 
better  class  of  labourers,  brought  much  disgrace  to 
the  Catholic  Irish  name.  The  synod  was  chiefly  in¬ 
strumental  in  destroying  these  pests.  It  also  com¬ 
pletely  abolished  the  lay-trustee  system  and  made 
the  rector  of  the  church  the  master  of  it,  in  tempo¬ 
rals  as  well  as  in  spirituals.  Some  of  the  secular  news¬ 
papers  attacked  the  bishop  for  the  law  against  the 
lay- trustees,  and  called  it  an  infringement  on  the 
rights  of  the  laity.  The  bishop  answered  his  as¬ 
sailants  in  a  strong  letter  to  “  David  Hale,  Esq.,  who 
is  some  kind  of  a  Presbyterian ;  M.  M.  Noah,  Esq., 


9° 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


who  is  a  Jew;  and  the  editor  (whose  name  I  do  not 
know)  of  a  little  paper  called  the  ‘  Aurora.’  ”  Mr. 
Hale,  who  was  then  the  editor  of  the  New  York 
“  Journal  of  Commerce,”  replied  to  the  bishop,  and 
exchanged  three  controversial  letters  with  him. 

Only  one  board  of  trustees  in  the  whole  diocese 
refused  to  obey  the  enactment  against  them.  This 
was  the  board  of  St.  Louis’  Church,  Buffalo.  The 
bishop  at  once  withdrew  the  priest  from  the  church ; 
the  trustees  petitioned  for  a  pastor.  The  bishop’s 
answer  was  characteristic  :  — 

“You  have  destroyed  the  peace  and  respectability  of 
your  congregation ;  you  have  annoyed  your  pastor  until 
he  felt  himself  obliged  to  leave  you;  you  have  attempted 
to  injure  the  character  of  your  bishop,  by  authorizing  the 
publication  of  falsehoods  and  calumnies  against  him  in 
the  newspapers,  —  and  in  the  midst  of  all  this  you  ask  me 
for  a  priest !  You  shall  not  govern  your  bishop,  but  your 
bishop  shall  govern  you  in  all  ecclesiastical  matters. 
When  you  are  willing  to  walk  in  the  way  of  your  holy 
faitn,  as  your  forefathers  did,  and  be  numbered  among 
the  flock  of  the  diocese,  precisely  as  all  other  trustees  and 
congregations  are,  then  I  shall  send  you  a  priest,  if  I 
should  have  one.” 

The  trustees  finally  obeyed,  and  confessed  their 
fault  in  a  public  document  written  by  himself  and 
printed  in  the  newspapers.  When  the  rebels  had 
thus  atoned  for  their  sin,  he  opened  their  church 
and  gave  them  a  priest.  But  when  the  diocese  was 
divided,  and  Father  Timon  became  Bishop  of  Buffalo, 


THE  BUFFALO  TRUSTEE  QUARREL.  9*, 

the  trouble  broke  out  again.  In  consequence  of  this 
disturbance  the  Church  Property  Bill  of  1855  was 
passed  by  the  New  York  Legislature. 

In  the  autumn  of  1842  Bishop  Hughes  visited  the 
northern  and  western  parts  of  the  State,  and  had  op¬ 
portunities  of  displaying  the  wonderful  activity  and 
physical  strength  which  distinguished  him.  Thus  he 
arrived  at  Binghamton  late  of  a  Saturday  night ;  the 
next  day  he  administered  confirmation,  preached  four 
times,  and  dedicated  a  church.  Although  fatigued, 
on  the  Monday  following  he  preached  twice,  and  con¬ 
secrated  a  graveyard.  On  Tuesday  he  rode  thirty 
miles,  in  an  open  wagon,  to  a  place  called  Oxford, 
where  he  preached,  and  the  evening  of  the  same  day 
he  started  for  Utica.  Such  labours  as  these  under¬ 
mined  his  fine  constitution ;  he  grew  sick,  and  felt 
that  he  needed  help  in  the  work  of  his  diocese.  Con¬ 
sequently,  in  May,  1843,  at  the  Fifth  Council  of 
Baltimore,  he  asked  the  assembled  prelates  for  a 
coadjutor.  They  recommended  to  the  Holy  See 
for  that  office  Rev.  John  McCloskey,  then  rector  of 
St.  Joseph’s  Church  in  Sixth  Avenue,  New  York 
City.  After  the  Council,  the  bishop  went  to  Europe 
with  a  financial  plan  which  he  hoped  to  realize  in 
Belgium.  He  proposed  to  negotiate  there  a  three  or 
four  per  cent  loan  on  the  consolidated  debts  of  his 
diocese,  and  pay  off  all  the  American  mortgages 
which  were  running  at  a  higher  rate  of  interest. 


92 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


i 

On  Wednesday,  June  7,  he  left  New  York  on  the 
ship  “  George  Washington,”  in  the  company  of  his 
old  friend  Bishop  Purcell  of  Cincinnati,  Father 
De  Smet,  the  great  Jesuit  Indian  missionary,  and 
Mr.  Thurlow  Weed.  The  ship  was  becalmed  near 
the  coast  of  Cork,  so  that  they  all  landed  there  and 
travelled  overland  to  Dublin.  The  spot  where  they 
went  ashore  on  the  Irish  coast  was  near  the  little  vil¬ 
lage  of  Courtmacsherry.  They  were  taken  for  French 
officers  and  emissaries  by  the  English  officials  of  the 
place.  With  some  difficulty  the  American  travellers 
proved  their  true  character,  continued  their  journey, 
and  reached  Dublin  on  the  eve  of  a  great  “  Repeal  of 
the  Union  ”  meeting  at  Donnybrook.  The  bishop, 
with  Father  De  Smet,  attended  the  meeting,  where 
they  met  Daniel  O’Connell.  Then  the  bishop  and 
his  fellow-passengers  went  to  Liverpool,  where  an 
amusing  incident  took  place  which  Mr.  Weed  used 
to  relate  with  pleasure.  Some  one  had  given  the 
bishop  two  bottles  of  snuff,  which  the  custom-house 
officials  found  in  his  trunk,  and  for  which  they 
charged  him  four  dollars’  duty. 

“  You  must  pay  this,  sir,”  said  the  officer,  “  in 
honour  of  the  Queen.” 

“For  which  I  should  like  to  give  her  Majesty  a 
pinch,”  replied  the  bishop. 

His  financial  scheme  fell  through,  as  no  Belgian 
capitalist  would  invest  in  his  Emprunt  Catholique  de 


REV.  JOHN  ARCLOSKEY  COADJUTOR.  93 

New  York  ;  but  instead  of  money  he  obtained  sev¬ 
eral  priests  to  work  in  the  missions  of  his  diocese. 
He  returned  to  New  York  in  October,  and  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  December  we  find  him  lecturing  to  an  audi¬ 
ence  of  thirty- five  hundred  people,  on  “The  Mixture’ 
of  Civil  and  Ecclesiastical  Power  in  the  Middle  Ages.” 
In  February,  1844,  he  lectured  every  Thursday  even¬ 
ing  in  his  cathedral  on  doctrinal  subjects,  before  very 
large  audiences. 

On  March  10,  1844,  Rev.  John  McCloskey  was 
consecrated  as  his  coadjutor,  with  the  title  of  Bishop 
of  Axiem,  in  partibus  infidelium.  Two  other  priests 
of  New  York  were  made  bishops  at  the  same  time  : 
the  Rev.  Andrew  Byrne,  Bishop  of  Little  Rock, 
Arkansas,  and  the  Rev.  William  Quarter,  Bishop  of 
Chicago.  The  consecrators  were  Bishop  Hughes, 
Bishop  Whelan,  of  Richmond,  afterward  of  Wheeling, 
and  Bishop  Fenwick,  of  Boston. 

It  was  in  this  year  that  the  so-called  “  Native 

« 

American”  political  party  became  conspicuous  by 
creating  riots  and  otherwise  disturbing  the  peace  of 
the  country.  They  singled  out  Bishop  Hughes,  be¬ 
cause  of  his  prominence  and  aggressiveness,  for  special 
abuse.  They  misrepresented  his  conduct  and  his 
purposes ;  their  newspapers  attacked  him  daily.  His 
controversy  on  the  “  School  Question  ”  was  distorted 
into  an  attempt  to  drive  the  Bible  out  of  the  public 
schools.  He  was  accused  of  leading  an  Irish  Catho- 


94 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


lie  party  in  an  attempt  to  get  control  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment.  His  overthrow  of  the  lay- trustees  was 
misrepresented  as  an  effort  to  establish  a  despotic 
priestcraft  hostile  to  the  spirit  of  American  liberty. 
The  “  Native  American  ”  orators,  and  some  of  the 
newspapers,  denounced  him  as  an  ambitious  foe  of 
republican  institutions  and  a  satellite  of  the  Pope.  In 
Philadelphia,  a  school  controversy  similar  to  the  one 
in  New  York  had  arisen,  and  was  the  occasion  of 
much  excitement,  which  spread  over  the  country. 
Bishop  Hughes  advised  his  flock  to  keep  quiet,  and 
to  do  nothing  to  provoke  the  prejudices  of  the  political 
faction  which  was  abusing  the  name  of  “  American.” 
He  foresaw  that  the  smoke  of  prejudice  would  soon 
be  dissipated,  and  that  the  flames  of  bigotry  would 
soon  die  out.  He  counted  on  the  good  sense  and 
the  sober  judgment  of  the  majority  of  American  citi¬ 
zens.  The  Catholics,  generally,  followed  their  pastor’s 
counsel,  although  some  of  them  fretted  under  abuse 
which  they  knew  to  be  unmerited.  On  the  night  of 
the  municipal  election  in  1 844,  a  mob  of  over  a  thou¬ 
sand  “  Native  Americans,”  yelling,  groaning,  cursing, 
and  bearing  “No  Popery  ”  banners,  marched  through 
the  sixth  and  the  fourteenth,  then  called  the  “  Irish,” 
wards  of  the  city.  Yet  so  docile  to  the  bishop’s  ad¬ 
vice  were  the  people  of  his  faith,  though  naturally  an 
impulsive  and  pugnacious  race,  that  not  one  of  them 
resented  the  insult.  But  although  the  bishop  was 


DEFENCE  AGAINST  AIOBS. 


95 


patient,  he  was  not  a  coward.  He  would  not  permit 
his  Church  or  his  person  to  be  attacked  with  impu¬ 
nity.  His  armour  was  always  on,  and  his  lance  always 
couched  for  a  foe.  He  was  a  natural-born  soldier. 
When,  therefore,  he  heard  that  a  threat  had  been  made 
to  bum  down  his  cathedral,  he  caused  three  or  four 
thousand  of  the  most  intelligent  and  prominent  Cath¬ 
olics  to  arm  themselves,  and  to  take  possession  of  the 
churchyard  in  Mott  Street,  and  defend  the  building. 
When  the  “  Natives  ”  heard  of  these  preparations,  they 
were  afraid  to  attack,  and  no  more  was  heard  of  the 
threat. 

So  heated  were  minds  at  that  time  that  a  lie  of  a 
few  lines,  in  anti-Catholic  newspapers,  was  capable 
of  exciting  the  most  fearful  riots.  In  Philadelphia, 
the  “  Natives  ”  destroyed  St.  Michael’s  Church  and 
St.  Augustine’s  Church  and  Rectory,  the  valuable  li¬ 
brary  of  the  Augustinians,  as  well  as  the  residence  of 
the  Sisters  of  Charity,  and  a  number  of  houses  inhab¬ 
ited  by  Irish  families.  In  fact,  such  was  the  danger 
of  mob-violence  that  public  worship  had  to  be  sus¬ 
pended  in  all  the  Catholic  Churches  of  that  city. 
The  news  of  these  outrages  roused  the  martial  blood 
and  the  indignation  of  the  bishop.  Had  he  lived  in 
Philadelphia,  he  would  have  resisted  the  mobs  with 
an  armed  body;  he  would  have  roused  his  people, 
and  if  they  were  to  be  murdered,  he  would  not  let 
them  die  unavenged.  In  the  midst  of  the  excite- 


96 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


ment,  some  one  advised  him  to  issue  a  pastoral  urging 
the  Catholics  to  keep  the  peace.  But  he  argued, 
Catholics  have  not  broken  the  peace  ;  they  have  kept 
it  too  well  in  Philadelphia.  They  should  have  de¬ 
fended  their  property.  He  declared  publicly,  and 
with  an  emphasis  that  all  could  understand,  that  if 
a  “  single  Catholic  Church  were  burned  in  New  York, 
the  city  would  become  a  second  Moscow.”  Some  of 
the  city  officials  begged  him  to  restrain  the  Irish,  who 
were  excited  by  what  had  been  done  in  the  neigh¬ 
bouring  city.  “  I  have  not  the  power,”  was  his  reply; 
“  you  must  take  care  that  they  are  not  provoked.” 
He  blamed  the  Catholics  of  Philadelphia  for  their 
lack  of  organization.  “  They  should  have  defended 
their  Churches,”  said  he,  “  since  the  authorities  could 
not,  or  would  not,  do  it  for  them.  We  might  forbear 
harming  the  intruder  into  our  house ,  until  the  last ; 
but  his  first  violence  to  our  Church  should  be  promptly 
and  decisively  repelled.” 

He  made  preparations  for  war ;  he  garrisoned 
every  Catholic  Church  in  the  city  with  an  armed 
force  of  one  or  two  thousand  men  “  resolved  after 
taking  as  many  lives  as  they  could  in  defense  of  their 
property,  to  give  up,  if  necessary,  their  own  lives  for 
the  same  cause.”  But  he  warned  his  people  against 
making  the  first  attack,  and  they  obeyed  him  like  trained 
soldiers.  Some  oi  them  were  so  determined  to  make 
every  resistance,  that  they  would  have  set  fire  to  their 


“ NATIVE  AMERICAN”  EXCITEMENT.  97 

.  -  r  ‘  I  '  t 

■own  houses  and  destroyed  the  city,  if  any  mob  had 
ventured  to  attack  them.  They  felt  as  if  they  were 
surrounded  by  enemies.  The  very  officials  that 
should  protect  them  were  in  league  against  them ; 
so  they  were  resolved  to  protect  themselves  and 
their  Churches,  and  to  stand  by  their  bishop  to  the 
death.  Through  the  “  Freeman’s  Journal,”  his  organ, 
he  addressed  his  people.  Having  heard  that  a  band 
of“  Natives”  were  coming  from  Philadelphia,  bearing 
an  American  flag  which  they  lyingly  said  had  been 
trampled  on  by  “  savage  foreigners ;  ”  and  that  the 
New  York  “  Know-Nothings  ”  were  to  escort  their 
visiting  brethren  through  the  city,  and  hold  a  meeting 
in  City  Hall  Park,  he  foresaw  that  the  result  would 
be  a  riot  and  bloodshed.  He  consequently  issued 
an  extra  edition  of  the  “  Freeman,”  in  which  he 
warned  Catholics  to  keep  away  from  all  public  meet¬ 
ings  and  give  no  cause  for  provocation  to  the  “  Church- 
burners,  convent-sackers,  and  grave-robbers.”  He 
called  also  on  the  mayor,  Robert  H.  Morris,  and  urged 
him  to  prevent  the  “  Know-Nothing  ”  meeting. 

“  Are  you  afraid,”  said  the  mayor,  “  that  some  of 
your  churches  will  be  burned?  ” 

“  No,  sir;  but  I  am  afraid  that  some  of  yours  will 
be  burned?  We  can  protect  our  own.  I  come  to 
warn  you  for  your  own  good.” 

“Do  you  think,  Bishop,  that  your  people  would 
attack  the  procession?” 


7 


98 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


“  I  do  not ;  but  the  ‘  Native  Americans  *  want  to 
provoke  a  Catholic  riot,  and  if  they  can  do  it  in  no 
Dther  way,  I  believe  they  would  not  scruple  to  attack 
the  procession  themselves,  for  the  sake  of  making  it 
appear  that  the  Catholics  had  assailed  them.” 

“ What  then  would  you  have  me  do?” 

“  I  did  not  come  to  tell  you  what  to  do.  I  am  a 
Churchman,  not  the  Mayor  of  New  York ;  but  if  I 
were  the  mayor,  I  would  examine  the  laws  of  the 
State,  and  see  if  there  were  not  attached  to  the  police 
force  a  battery  of  artillery,  and  a  company  or  so  of 
infantry,  and  a  squadron  of  horse ;  and  I  think  I 
should  find  that  there  were ;  and  if  so  I  should  order 
them  out.”  He  also  advised  Mayor  Morris  to  see 
the  “  Know-Nothing  ”  mayor-elect,  Mr.  Harper,  and 
get  him  to  use  his  influence  with  his  supporters  to 
prevent  a  riot. 

The  bishop’s  firm  action  prevented  a  disturbance 
of  the  peace;  his  advice  was  taken.  No  riot  was 
attempted.  Even  later  in  July,  when  riots  broke  out 
again  in  the  city  of  “  Brotherly  Love,”  the  New  York 
“  Know-Nothings  ”  were  quiet.  They  were  afraid  of 
the  fighting  bishop ;  and  they  knew  that  he  would 
meet  force  with  force.  But  cowards  who  were  afraid 
to  fight  him  openly,  assailed  him  privately.  He 
received  several  anonymous  letters,  one  of  which 
threatened  him  with  assassination.  It  afforded  him 
occasion  for  a  public  letter  published  on  May  17, 


“ NATIVE  AMERICAN ”  EXCITEMENT.  99 


1844,  in  the  “  Courier  and  Enquirer.”  In  this  docu¬ 
ment  he  answers  all  his  assailants.  He  gives  a  full 
account  of  his  life,  refutes  the  slanders  of  some  news¬ 
papers  which  had  falsely  charged  him  with  disloyalty 
to  American  institutions,  and  strongly  attacks  the 
New  York  “  Herald  ”  and  the  “  Commercial  Adver¬ 
tiser  ”  for  circulating  calumnies  against  him.  He 
always  felt  keenly  any  attack  on  his  loyalty  as  a  citi¬ 
zen,  or  on  the  loyalty  of  the  Church  of  which  he  was 
a  representative.  He  resented  any  statement  or  im¬ 
putation  that  there  was  anything  in  the  Catholic 
religion  which  was  not  reconcilable  with  the  fullest 
American  political  liberty.  The  charge  of  disloyalty 
was  the  special  charge  of  the  “  Native  Americans.”  1 
He  refuted  it  again  and  again,  only  to  see  the  same 
old  falsehood  repeated  by  the  enemies  of  his  faith. 
His  own  conduct  proved  that  a  more  devoted  son  of 
the  republic  never  lived,  and  that  his  intense  love  of 
the  Church  only  made  his  patriotism  the  stronger. 

r 

1  I  have  sometimes  called  this  political  faction  “  The  Know- 
Nothings,”  because  their  aim  and  motive  were  the  same  as 
those  of  the  “  Know-Nothings,”  ten  years  later;  I  believe,  how¬ 
ever,  that  historically  the  name  “  Know-Nothing  ”  was  not  in 
general  use  until  1854. 


I 


CHAPTER  X. 

He  visits  Europe  in  the  Interest  of  Education. 
—His  Political  Opinions.  —  Organization  of  the 
Sisters  of  Charity  in  his  Diocese.  —  Sympathy 
with  the  Irish  Patriots  of  1848. —  His  Contro¬ 
versy  with  ^‘Kirwan.” 

% 

The  bishop,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not  satisfied  with 
the  exclusively  secular  education  of  the  public  schools. 
He  had  also  given  up  the  hope  that  a  concession 

would  be  made  by  the  school  authorities  to  satisfy 

» 

the  conscience  of  Catholics  who  insisted  on  the  union 
of  religious  and  secular  education  in  the  school.  He 
therefore  formed  the  resolution  to  establish  a  school 
in  every  parish  of  his  diocese.  For  this,  however, 
teachers  were  needed.  He  determined  to  seek  them 
in  Europe,  and  consequently  on  March  19,  1845, 
crossed  the  ocean  and  brought  over  a  colony  of 
“  Christian  Brothers,”  —  a  body  of  laymen  conse¬ 
crated  by  vow  to  the  education  of  boys,  —  and  a  number 
of  Sisters  of  Mercy,  to  take  charge  of  an  orphan  asylum 
and  of  hospitals  to  be  erected.  He  returned  to  New 
York,  April  21,  1846.  In  July  of  the  same  year  he 


HIS  VISIT  TO  EUROPE . 


IOI 


sold  St.  John’s  College  at  Fordham  to  the  Jesuit 
Fathers,  some  of  whom  came  from  Kentucky  to  take 
charge  of  it.  The  college  had  been  previously  char¬ 
tered  in  April,  1846,  and  enjoyed  all  the  privileges  of 
a  university.  So  flourishing  was  it  that  in  July,  1846, 
there  were  one  hundred  and  forty-six  students  in  it. 
Its  debt  was  then  forty  thousand  dollars.  He  did  not, 
however,  sell  St.  Joseph’s  seminary  with  the  college ; 
but  the  Jesuits,  at  his  request,  taught  the  seminarists 
until  a.  d.  1855.  At  the  Sixth  Council  of  Baltimore, 
in  May,  1846,  he  asked  for  a  division  of  his  diocese. 
The  Fathers  of  the  Council  acceded  to  his  request ; 
and  two  new  sees  were  erected  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  one  at  Albany,  the  other  at  Buffalo.  In  July, 
1847,  Rev.  John  McCloskey  was  appointed  Bishop  of 
‘  Albany,  and  the  Rev.  John  Timon,  Bishop  of  Buffalo. 

The  Mexican  War  had  just  begun,  and  our  secre¬ 
tary  of  state,  Hon.  James  Buchanan,  at  the  suggestion 
of  the  President,  thought  that  Bishop  Hughes  would 
be  a  good  envoy  to  send  from  our  Government  to 
Mexico.  Hence  an  invitation  from  the  secretary 
was  sent  to  the  bishop,  asking  him  to  come  to  Wash¬ 
ington  to  advise  with  the  President  on  “  public  affairs 
of  importance.”  The  bishop,  who  was  then  at  the 
Baltimore  Council,  consulted  the  other  bishops  as  to 
the  propriety  of  accepting  such  an  office.  They  ad¬ 
vised  him  to  refuse  it,  unless  President  Polk  would 
give  him  the  full  rank  and  title  of  an  ambassador. 


102 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


He  went  to  Washington,  where  Mr.  Buchanan  first 
consulted  him  about  the  appointment  of  Catholic 
chaplains  in  the  army,  and  then  spoke  about  the  em¬ 
bassy.  But  the  President  could  not  give  the  bishop 
the  full  rank  of  an  envoy,  because  the  Mexican  Gov¬ 
ernment  had  just  refused  to  receive  the  American 
minister  duly  accredited.  And  so  the  affair  ended. 

The  bishop  was  even  then  on  terms  of  intimacy 
with  many  of  our  prominent  statesmen,  who  admired 
his  genius.  He  felt  at  home  in  their  company.  Al¬ 
though  he  never  voted  but  once  or  twice,  and  never 
tried  to  influence  a  vote  except  in  the  school  contro¬ 
versy,  he  had  a  taste  for  political  discussion.  He 
knew  the  arguments  of  the  different  parties  well,  and 
understood  the  wants  of  the  country  and  the  rivalries 
of  the  different  sections  of  it.  He  was  a  shrewd  judge 
of  politicians  and  of  their  plans  and  purposes. 
Among  them  he  was  combative  in  conversation,  but 
not  rashly  aggressive.  He  never  began  the  attack, 
but  he  never  avoided  it.  He  was  conscious  of  all 
his  powers,  and  felt  that  no  antagonist  was  his  superior. 
In  1852  he  voted  the  Whig  ticket  for  Henry  Clay, 
just  because,  as  he  said,  some  of  his  congregation 
threatened  him  if  he  would  not  vote  for  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  candidate.  When  Mr.  Clay  afterward  visited 
New  York,  the  bishop  called  on  him  at  his  hotel. 
The  moment  Mr.  Clay  received  his  card,  he  turned 
out  all  his  other  distinguished  guests,  hastened  to 


ORGANIZES  THE  SISTERS  OF  CHARITY, 

greet  the  bishop,  and  spent  an  hour  with  him  in 
private  conversation. 

From  political  questions,  the  bishop  now  turned  to 
purely  ecclesiastical  affairs,  which  gave  him  great 
annoyance.  The  Sisters  of  Charity  in  his  diocese  were 
a  branch  of  the  order  founded  at  Emmittsburg,  Mary¬ 
land,  by  Mother  Seton.  They  were  not  under  the 
control  of  the  bishop,  but  were  governed  by  a  mother 
superioress  who  lived  at  Emmittsburg.  This  state  of 
affairs  never  pleased  him ;  yet  he  would  have  prob¬ 
ably  made  no  change  if  orders  which  disarranged  his 
plans  had  not  been  sent  to  them  by  their  superioress. 
He  wished  the  Sisters  in  his  diocese  to  take  charge 
of  orphan  boys,  although  this  was  contrary  to  the 
Emmittsburg  rule.  But  the  Sisters  in  New  York,  con¬ 
sidering  the  necessities  of  the  case,  had  hitherto 
obeyed  the  bishop.  Their  clerical  superior  was  a 
Sulpitian  priest,  Rev.  Mr.  Deluol,  who  lived  in  Balti¬ 
more.  He  finally  ordered  the  Sisters  to  withdraw 
from  the  male  orphan  asylums  in  New  York.  The 
bishop  protested,  and  succeeded  with  difficulty  in  get¬ 
ting  a  concession  that  all  the  Sisters  who  desired  should 
remain  in  his  diocese  and  organize  themselves  into  a 
separate  community  under  diocesan  control.  Thirty- 
one  out  of  fifty  Sisters  joined  the  new  society,  which 
became  known  as  the  "  Sisters  of  Charity  of  St.  Vin¬ 
cent  de  Paul.”  The  Emmittsburg  Sisters,  soon  after¬ 
ward  becoming  affiliated  to  the  community  founded  in 


\~ 


104  JOHN  HUGHES. 

France  by  St.  Vincent  de  Paul,  adopted  the  French 
dress  and  discipline.  The  New  York  Sisters,  whose 
mother  house  is  Mount  St.  Vincent  on  the  Hudson, 
retained  the  old  constitution  and  the  dress  adopted 
by  Mother  Seton. 

Having  thus  summarily  settled  this  case,  and  put 
the  orphans  of  his  diocese  under  the  charge  of  Sisters 
obedient  to  himself,  his  mind  was  diverted  to  an 
entirely  different  affair.  In  1848  an  ill-advised  and 
badly-planned  insurrection  broke  out  in  Ireland. 
The  news  stirred  the  bishop’s  blood.  Although,  as 
he  said,  “  he  was  so  much  identified  with  all  that  is 
American  that  he  had  almost  forgotten  his  foreign 
birth,”  yet  the  welfare  of  his  native  land  always 
excited  his  interest.  The  wrongs  of  Ireland  had 
made  him  hate  English  rule.  He  grieved  over  the 
famine  which,  in  1847,  had  decimated  the  Irish  peo¬ 
ple.  When  he  heard  of  it,  he  stopped  the  order  for 
a  collection  for  his  theological  seminary,  and  ordered 
one  for  the  famine- stricken  Irish  instead.  “  It  is 
better  that  seminaries  should  be  suspended,”  said  he, 
“  than  that  so  large  a  portion  of  our  fellow-beings 
should  be  exposed  to  death  by  starvation.”  He  col¬ 
lected  fourteen  thousand  dollars,  and  sent  this  sum  to 
Ireland  for  the  relief  of  the  sufferers ;  he  also  de¬ 
livered  a  lecture  for  their  benefit.  The  title  of  it 
showed  the  animus  of  the  orator,  "  The  Tyrant  and 
his  Famine,  or  the  Irish  Tragedy  of  Six  Hundred 


SYMPATHY  WITH  IRISH  PATRIOTS.  1 05 


Years.”  He  further  showed  his  sympathy  with  the 
insurrection  in  Ireland  by  accompanying  Horace 
Greeley  to  a  public  meeting  in  its  favour,  held  in  Vaux- 
hall  Garden  on  August  14,  1848.  On  that  occasion 
he  said :  — 

“  There  may  be  a  crisis  in  the  history  of  a  nation  which 
will  authorize  and  almost  require  one  in  my  station  to  de¬ 
part  from  what  may  be  considered  the  ordinary  and  legiti¬ 
mate  routine  of  his  official  duties ;  I  think  that  such  a 
crisis  and  such  a  period  have  arrived  in  the  history  of 
Ireland.  By  the  last  news  it  appears  that  the  oppressor 
and  his  victim  stand  face  to  face.  I  come  among  you, 
gentlemen,  not  as  an  advocate  of  war,  it  would  ill  accord 
with  my  profession ;  my  office  is  properly  to  be  a  peace¬ 
maker,  when  it  is  possible.  But  I  come  in  the  name  of 
sacred  humanity,  not,  if  you  will,  to  put  arms  into  the 
hands  of  men  by  which  they  may  destroy  the  lives  of 
others,  but  to  give  my  voice  and  my  mite  to  shield  the 
unprotected  bosoms  of  the  sons  of  Ireland.  It  is  not  for 
me  to  say  anything  calculated  to  excite  your  feelings, 
when,  as  you  can  perceive,  I  can  scarcely  repress  my 
own.  My  object  in  coming  here  was  to  show  you  that 
in  my  conscience  I  have  no  scruples  in  aiding  the  cause 
in  every  way  worthy  a  patriot  and  a  Christian.” 

At  this  meeting  he  contributed  five  hundred  dol¬ 
lars  “  to  purchase  a  shield  to  interpose  between  the 
oppressor  and  the  victim.”  He  had  no  sympathy, 
however,  with  the  party  which  had  helped  to  thwart 
O’Connell  in  his  efforts  to  obtain  Home  Rule  for 


io6 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


Ireland  by  constitutional  methods.  He  saw  that  the 
attempt  of  the  Young  Ireland  party  to  separate  Ire¬ 
land  totally  from  England,  would  be  a  failure  and 
result  only  in  the  useless  shedding  of  blood.  Many 
of  the  young  Irelanders  were  tainted  with  irreligion : 
French  radicalism  had  corrupted  their  minds.  Con¬ 
sequently  he  opposed  their  plans ;  and  when  they 
came  to  America,  he  was  obliged  to  reprove  some 
of  their  leaders.  One  of  these,  a  very  able  and  ac¬ 
complished  orator  and  writer  who  afterward  repented 
of  his  radicalism,  Thomas  D’Arcy  McGee,  of  the  New 
York  “  Nation,”  charged  the  priests  and  the  bishops 
with  being  the  cause  of  the  failure  of  the  Irish  rebel¬ 
lion.  It  is  true  that  the  majority  of  the  clergy  of  Ire¬ 
land  did  oppose  the  insurrection,  because  they  saw 
the  utter  impossibility  of  its  success.  The  bishop  thus 
replied  to  McGee  in  an  article  in  the  “Freeman’s 
Journal,”  “The  clergy  would  have  been  faithless  to 
the  obligations  of  religion  and  of  humanity,  if  they 
had  not  interposed,  seeing,  as  they  must  have  seen, 
the  certain  and  inevitable  consequence  of  a  move¬ 
ment  so  nobly  conceived,  but  so  miserably  con¬ 
ducted.”  He  described  the  disciples  of  the  McGee 
school  as  an  “  Irish  tribe  whose  hearts  have  aposta¬ 
tized  from  the  honoured  creed  of  their  country,  but 
whose  lips  have  not  yet  mustered  the  bad  courage 
to  disavow  the  faith  of  their  forefathers.”  He  also 
exposed  the  plans  and  denounced  the  conduct  of 


SYMPATHY  WITH  IRISH  PATRIOTS.  107 

the  Red  Republicans  who  at  this  time  were  disturb¬ 
ing  the  public  peace  by  revolt  and  rebellion  all  over 
Europe. 

About  the  middle  of  December,  1848,  Pius  IX.  was 
driven  by  them  from  Rome.  On  the  Sunday  follow¬ 
ing  the  bishop  preached  in  St.  Patrick’s  Cathedral,  on 
the  position  of  the  supreme  pontiff,  and  ordered  a 

collection  of  Peter  pence  to  be  taken  up  in  all  the 

* 

Churches  of  the  New  York  diocese.  The  sum  col¬ 
lected  was  nearly  seven  thousand  dollars.  One  of  the 
Young  Ireland  papers  advised  that  this  sum  should  be 
sent  to  the  Pope  privately,  for  fear  of  offending 
American  ideas  of  republicanism.  The  bishop  replied 
to  this  counsel  with  his  usual  frankness.  He  had 
nothing  to  conceal,  “  The  American  people,”  said  he, 
u  are  wise,  sensible,  and  just ;  and  they  despise  the 
man  who  does  not  appreciate  the  first  principles  of 
the  country  in  which  he  lives.”  In  January,  1850,  he 
lectured  in  Philadelphia  upon  “  The  Church  and  the 
World  since  the  Accession  of  Pius  IX,”  and  on  May 
12,  following,  he  caused  a  solemn  Mass  of  thanks¬ 
giving  to  be  celebrated  in  his  cathedral  on  account 
of  the  Pope’s  return  from  exile  to  the  Eternal  City. 
On  this  occasion  he  preached  a  sermon  strongly 
denouncing  the  atheism  of  the  European  revolution¬ 
ists,  and  defending  the  right  of  the  Pope  to  temporal 
sovereignty.  Some  of  the  newspapers  attacked  the 
sermon,  which  he  defended  in  a  letter  to  the  “  Courier 


io8 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


and  Enquirer.”  His  contention  was  that  revolution 
is  justifiable  only  in  extreme  cases  of  oppression,  and 
that  there  was  no  excuse  for  the  Roman  revolution. 
He  showed  that  the  people  of  the  Pope’s  kingdom 
were  neither  overtaxed  nor  oppressed ;  and  that  the 
revolutionists  there  were  either  the  paid  agents  of  the 
King  of  Sardinia  or  open  atheists  hostile  to  all  re¬ 
ligion.  He  denied  the  parity  between  our  revolution, 
the  Irish  rebellion,  and  that  of  the  Roman  insurrec¬ 
tion.  We  had  been  taxed  unjustly,  the  Irish  cruelly 
oppressed  by  a  foreign  power ;  while  the  people  of 
Rome  were  governed  by  a  mild  ruler  who  was  one  of 
themselves.  “  The  papal  government,”  he  truly  wrote, 
“was  paternal,  kind,  and  considerate.  The  taxes  on 
the  people  of  the  Roman  States  were  light;  their 
fidelity  to  their  sovereign  unquestioned,”  until  foreign 
intrigue,  bribery,  and  Sardinian  ambition  had  sown 
discontent  among  them. 

He  preached  and  wrote  incessantly.  In  December, 
1847,  he  delivered  a  discourse  in  the  House  of  Repre¬ 
sentatives  at  Washington.  His  subject  was  “  Christian¬ 
ity  the  only  Source  of  Moral,  Social,  and  Political 
Regeneration.”  The  invitation  to  make  this  discourse 
came  from  the  most  distinguished  statesmen  in  the 
country,  —  from  John  Quincy  Adams,  Stephen  A. 
Douglas,  John  C.  Calhoun,  Mr.  Benton,  and  others. 
He  believed  that  our  republic  would  not  be  safe  unless 
it  remained  Christian ;  and  he  believed  that  Catholic 


CONTROVERSY  WIT'H  “  KIR  WANT  109 

■Christianity,  as  being  the  most  conservative,  was 
necessary  to  the  perpetuity  of  our  free  institutions.  In 
support  of  these  opinions  he  wrote  a  series  of  articles, 
in  the  “  Freeman’s  Journal,”  “on  the  importance  of 
being  in  communion  with  Christ’s  one,  holy,  Catholic, 
and  apostolic  Church.”  These  were  in  part  an 
answer  to  the  Rev.  Nicholas  Murray,  an  Irish  Pres¬ 
byterian  minister  of  Elizabeth,  New  Jersey,  who,  under 
a  pseudonym,  wrote  “  Kirwan’s  Letters  to  Bishop 
Hughes.”  When  the  bishop  afterward  found  out 
who  “  Kirwan  ”  was,  he  wrote  six  letters,  which  were 
published  under  the  name  *of  “  Kirwan  Unmasked.” 
These  letters  are  models  of  pure  English  and  good 
logic.  They  are  among  the  best  productions  of  the 
bishop’s  pen.  They  are  clear,  direct,  and  forcible, 
and  show  him  to  be  a  master  of  good  English.  He 
handled  “  Kirwan  ”  with  the  skill  of  a  trained  logi¬ 
cian,  and  exposed  him  to  the  contempt  of  his  Irish 
countrymen  as  an  apostate  and  an  assailer  of  the  faith 
and  race  of  his  Catholic  parents. 

But  while  the  bishop  was  thus  occupied  with  lit¬ 
erary  labour,  he  neglected  none  of  his  other  duties. 
His  daily  work,  which  is  like  the  task  of  every  Cath¬ 
olic  bishop,  is  thus  described  by  John  R.  G.  Hassard, 
in  a  passage  well  worth  quoting  :  — 

“At  home,  besides  the  duties  of  his  ministry,  the  in¬ 
struction  of  neophytes,  the  supervision  of  the  affairs  of 
all  the  Churches,  the  regulation  of  the  finances  of  th® 


no 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


diocese,  the  satisfaction  of  heavy  debts  upon  ecclesias¬ 
tical  property,  the  devising  of  means  for  building  new 
churches,  the  establishment  of  Catholic  schools,  the 
foundation  of  charitable  and  religious  institutions,  he 
was  obliged  to  carry  a  load  of  worry  and  perplexity  which 
was  not  entailed  on  him  by  his  office,  but  imposed  by  the 
selfishness  or  the  egotism  or  ignorance  of  persons  who 
had  no  claim  on  his  attention.  His  letter-book  from  the 
year  1848  down  to  a  period  when,  from  the  very  multitude 
of  unwarrantable  calls  upon  his  time,  and  from  the  weight 
of  gathering  years,  he  felt  obliged  to  disregard  many  of 
those  who  addressed  him,  presents  an  amusing  study. 
Young  men  in  Ireland  whom  he  never  heard  of  asked 
his  advise  about  coming  to  America.  One  wants  a  sit¬ 
uation  in  a  bank;  another  inquires  about  business  in 
general.  All  sorts  of  people  send  him  boxes  and  pack¬ 
ages  to  be  forwarded  to  their  relatives  in  all  sorts  of  out- 
of-the-way  towns  in  America.  Priests  in  Europe  send 
him  restitution-money  that  has  been  given  them  in  the 
confessional  by  penitent  thieves,  and  beg  him  to  find  out 
(mostly  with  the  vaguest  directions)  the  persons  to  whom 
it  rightfully  belongs.  Emigrants  send  him  money,  and 
request  him  to  buy  drafts  to  transmit  to  their  friends  in 
the  old  country.  Poor  people  in  the  old  country,  on  the 
other  hand,  ask  him  to  find  out  their  emigrant  friends? 
whose  address  they  do  not  know.  A  little  army  of  office- 
seekers  besiege  him  for  letters  of  introduction.  Pious 
souls  write  him  letters  of  eight  pages  about  their  worldly 
and  spiritual  troubles.  Protestant  clergymen,  preparing 
themselves  for  a  terrible  assault  upon  the  abominations 
of  Popery,  request  him  to  state,  as  clearly  as  possible,  the 
Catholic  doctrine  on  this  or  that  question.  One  gentle- 


CONTROVERSY  WITH  “  KIR  WANT 


III 


man  consults  him  about  the  Broadway  railroad.  A  great 
many  gentlemen  ask  for  loans  of  fifty  dollars.  Suspicious, 
quarrelsome,  or  malicious  persons  trouble  him  with  every 
kind  of  absurd  charge  against  their  parish  priest.  Most 
of  these  are  promptly  and  politely  answered  ;  and  in  the 
great  majority  of  cases,  an  effort  is  made  to  comply  with 
their  reasonable  demands.  There  was  another  class  of 
persons  who  occupied  a  great  deal  of  his  time,  but  to 
whom  he  was  always  glad  to  surrender  himself,  —  I  mean 
honest  inquirers  after  Catholic  truth,  fie  thought  no 
labour  thrown  away  which  was  bestowed  in  explaining  to 
them  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  or  answering  their 
objections.  A  very  great  number  of  persons  were  led 
into  the  Church  through  his  influence  or  under  his 
instructions.” 1 


1  Life  of  Archbishop  Hughes,  p.  319. 


\ 


CHAPTER  XI. 

He  is  made  an  Archbishop.  —  The  Erection  of 
New  Sees.  —  The  Know-Nothing  Movement  of 
1854. — The  first  Provincial  Council  of  New 
York.  —  Controversy  with  Erastus  Brooks. — 
The  Catholic  Vote. 

The  Seventh  Council  of  Baltimore,  held  in  May, 
1849,  had  recommended  to  the  Holy  See  the  erection 
of  three  new  archbishoprics  in  the  United  States,  —  one 
at  New  York,  another  at  Cincinnati,  and  the  third  at 
N  ew  Orleans.  Baltimore,  St.  Louis,  and  Oregon  City 
were  then  the  only  metropolitan  sees  in  the  country. 
Rome  consented ;  and  on  Oct.  3,  1850,  Bishop 
Hughes  received  the  brief  elevating  him  to  the  dignity 
of  an  archbishop,  with  the  bishops  of  Boston,  of  Hart¬ 
ford,  of  Albany,  and  of  Buffalo,  as  his  suffragants.  On 
November  10,  of  the  same  year,  he  sailed  for  Rome. 
Before  his  departure  he  issued  a  pastoral  on  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  the  religious  education  of  youth.  When  he 
arrived  in  England,  he  was  treated  with  unusual  respect, 
and  at  Rome  he  was  invited  by  the  authorities  of  the 
English  College  to  assist,  with  other  bishops  and  many 


1 


/. 


HE  IS  MADE  AN  ARCHBISHOP.  113 

cardinals,  in  celebrating  the  feast  of  Saint  Thomas  a 
Becket.  During  his  stay  in  the  Eternal  City,  in  Jan¬ 
uary,  1851,  he  gave  a  course  of  controversial  sermons 
in  the  Church  of  St.  Andrea  delle  Frate,  and  on  the 
following  feast  of  Saint  Agatha,  February  5,  he  preached 
her  panegyric  before  a  distinguished  audience.  Rome 
had  now  fully  recognized  his  ability,  and  the  English 
speaking  world  was  filled  with  his  name.  A  pamphlet 
which  he  had  written  on  “The  Decline  of  Protestantism, 
and  its  Causes  ”  was  translated  into  Italian  and  printed 
in  the  Roman  newspapers. 

The  report  was  even  circulated  that  he  was  going 
to  be  made  a  cardinal.  It  originated  in  Washing¬ 
ton,  where  the  government  was  friendly  to  him ;  and 
the  American  Minister  at  Rome  urged  the  matter  on 
the  papal  court.  But  Pius  IX.  objected  that  there  was 
no  vacant  hat  among  the  cardinal  priests ;  and  some 
of  the  American  bishops  wrote  to  the  Holy  See  that  it 
was  inopportune  to  make  an  American  cardinal. 

The  Pope  himself  conferred  the  pallium  on  him 
on  April  3,  1851,  and  a  month  later  he  left  Rome  for 
Vienna.  On  June  n  he  sailed  from  Liverpool  for 
New  York,  where  he  landed  after  a  voyage  of  eleven 
days.  On  July  21  the  Catholics  of  New  York  gave 
him  a  banquet  at  the  Astor  House. 

Immediately  on  his  arrival  home  he  took  great  in¬ 
terest  in  the  establishment  of  the  Catholic  University 
in  Dublin,  and  gave  permission  to  priests  sent  from 

8 


1*4 


JOHN  HUGHES . 


Ireland  to  America  to  collect  money  for  the  purpose. 
Then  he  engaged  in  a  controversy  with  the  New  York 
“  Tribune.”  This  journal  had  criticised  a  discourse 
which  he  had  made  attacking  Kossuth  and  certain  other 
European  revolutionists.  The  archbishop  showed  that 
they  were  the  enemies  of  religion,  and  that  their  at¬ 
tempted  revolution  was  not  justifiable.  In  a  letter  to 
Mr.  Greeley,  of  November  21,  he  wrote  :  — 

“  I' deny,  with  the  Catholic  Church,  any  right  of  one  man, 
by  physical  coercion,  to  compel  the  conscience  of  another 
man.  Hence,  therefore,  I  am  opposed  to  all  penal  laws 
having  the  coercion  of  conscience  for  their  object.  In 
countries  which  are  already  divided  and  broken  up  into 
religious  sects,  mutual  toleration,  kindness,  and  good-will 
in  all  the  civil  and  social  relations  of  life,  constitute  at  once, 
in  my  opinion,  the  duties  and  the  right  of  all.  But  I  am  not 
aware  that  a  Protestant  State,  such  as  Sweden,  is  bound, 
by  way  of  granting  religious  liberty,  to  place  atheism  on 
the  same  footing  as  Lutheranism.  Neither  am  I  of  opin¬ 
ion  that  the  sovereign  pontiff,  whose  subjects  are  entirely 
Catholic  and  united  in  belief,  is  bound  to  throw  his  States 
open  for  the  preaching  of  every  form  of  Protestantism  and 
infidelity.” 

When  Kossuth  arrived  in  New  York,  the  Catholics, 
warned  by  the  archbishop,  would  not  recognize  him. 
The  archbishop  showed  that  the  Hungarian  revolu¬ 
tionist  was  only  a  demagogue,  —  a  fact  which  slowly 
found  credence  in  the  Protestant  community.  In 


DISTINGUISHED  IRISHMEN.  1 15 

March,  1852,  the  archbishop  gave  a  lecture  on  the 
“  Catholic  Chapter  in  the  History  of  the  United  States.” 
He  sent  a  copy  of  it  to  an  old  Protestant  friend  of  his 
in  Philadelphia,  Mr.  Biddle.  This  gentleman,  in  reply, 
made  many  interesting  statements.  His  father  had 
been  an  officer  of  rank  on  the  staff  of  General  Wash¬ 
ington  during  the  Revolutionary  War.  Mr.  Biddle 
wrote  :  — 

“  My  late  father  often  said,  that  during  this  contest  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  best  disciplined  and  most  effective 
continental  regiments  of  the  Pennsylvania  line  were  chiefly 
Irish  Catholics ;  and  three  of  these  very  religious  regi¬ 
ments  were  commanded  by  the  sons  of  Irishmen  :  namely, 
Wayne,  Irvine,  and  Shea,  —  the  former  the  distinguished 
favourite  of  Washington,  and  all  three  afterward  general 
officers.” 

The  writer  enumerated  many  other  distinguished 
Irishmen  whom  he  had  known  in  the  army,  and  in 
social  life ;  among  them  Stephen  Moylan,  Major  Butts, 
Colonel  Keating,  and  Colonel  Sharp  Delaney.  Mr. 
Biddle  states  also  in  this  letter  that  most  of  the  soldiers 
who,  led  by  Wayne,  stormed  Stony  Point,  were  Irish. 
This  information  greatly  pleased  the  archbishop,  who 
loved  to  hear  that  his  countrymen  had  defended  the 
land  of  their  adoption.  He  loved  that  land  most 
ardently ;  yet  he  was  broad  and  generous  in  his  judg¬ 
ment  and  treatment  of  all  nationalities.  “  In  the  an¬ 
nals  of  Church  history,”  he  once  wrote,  “  there  has 


JOHN  HUGHES . 


116 

never  been  a  country  which,  in  its  civil  and  social 
relations,  has  exhibited  so  fair  an  opportunity  for 
developing  the  practical  harmonies  of  Catholic  faith 
and  of  Catholic  charity  as  the  United  States.”  He 
wished  all  foreigners  to  become  naturalized  as  quickly 
as  possible,  and  was  opposed  to  the  making  of  any 
distinction  between  native  and  foreign  born  Catholics. 

In  1852  he  renewed  his  attempt  to  organize  a  gen¬ 
eral  debt-paying  society  for  the  benefit  of  the  Churches 
of  his  diocese,  and  formed  the  “  Auxiliary  Church¬ 
building  Association”  for  that  purpose.  But  the 
society  soon  failed  from  lack  of  unity  among  the 
people.  He  could  never  get  one  congregation  per¬ 
manently  to  help  another.  Nevertheless,  all  the  bank¬ 
rupt  Churches  had  been  restored  to  a  good  financial 
condition,  except  St.  Peter’s  in  Barclay  Street.  This 
Church,  lay-trustees  had  so  mismanaged  that  its  debt 
had  increased  from  $116,500  in  1838,  to  $135,000  in 
1844,  when  the  corporation  became  bankrupt.  One 
hundred  thousand  dollars  of  this  debt  was  in  notes 
given  to  poor  people  who  had  deposited  their  money 
with  the  trustees.  The  church  was  ordered  to  be  sold ; 
but  the  holders  of  these  notes  protested,  and  a  scan¬ 
dalous  five  years’  lawsuit  was  the  result.  The  poor 
creditors  appealed  to  the  archbishop.  In  1849  the 
Court  of  Appeals  confirmed  the  assignment  made  by 
the  trustees.  The  archbishop,  however,  tried  to  pay  the 
notes,  although  he  had  no  legal  control  of  the  property. 


CHURCH-DEB  T  SOCIE  TV.  1 1 J 

A  layman  was  the  assignee,  and  he  was  hostile  to 
the  archbishop  who  determined  to  expose  the  mis¬ 
management  of  affairs,  and  for  that  purpose  called  a 
meeting  of  the  chief  parishioners,  to  be  held  in  the 
basement  of  the  church.  When  the  assignee  heard 
of  this,  he  said  to  his  friends,  “  The  bishop  is  coming 
here  this  evening;  I  hope  he  will  behave  well.  If 
he  does,  we  shall  treat  him  with  respect;  but  if  he 
does  not,  I  shall  say  to  him,  *  Bishop,  there  is  the 
door  for  you.’  ”  But  the  archbishop  gave  such  a  scath¬ 
ing  exposition  of  the  mal-administration  of  the  Church 
funds,  that  the  assignee  was  obliged  to  leave  the 
meeting,  and  the  prelate’s  victory  was  complete.  He 
acquired  title  to  the  whole  property,  and  the  trustees 
of  St.  Patrick’s  Church  bought  some  lots  on  Fifth 
Avenue  belonging  to  the  embarrassed  parish.  These 
were  the  very  lots  on  which  St.  Patrick’s  Cathedral 
now  stands.  A  Church-Debt  society  was  organized  in 
St.  Peter’s  parish.  In  a  few  years  many  of  the  notes 
were  paid  off,  and  the  property  saved.  By  law,  the 
archbishop  was  authorized  to  pay  the  note-holders 
only  sixty-five  cents  on  the  dollar ;  but  he  insisted  on 
paying  the  full  face-value  of  the  notes  to  every  one 
who  presented  them. 

On  Dec.  26,  1852,  he  caused  a  solemn  Mass 
of  thanksgiving  to  be  sung  in  St.  Peter’s,  on  account 
of  its  liberation  from  financial  embarrassment.  He 
preached  a  sermon  on  the  occasion,  exposing,  with 


JOHN  HUGHES . 


118 

^reat  force,  the  evils  and  the  scandals  resulting  from 
lay-trusteeism.  A  Te  Deum  was  sung,  and  the  whole 
Church  rejoiced  at  the  destruction  of  so  baneful  a 
system  of  Church  administration. 

In  1853  Monsignore  Bedini,  apostolic  nuncio  to 
the  court  of  Brazil,  passed  through  our  country.  He 
bore  an  autograph-letter  from  the  Pope  to  the  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  United  States,  Franklin  Pierce.  The 
Monsignore  was  also  to  take  counsel  with  the  Ameri¬ 
can  bishops  on  several  important  matters  affecting  the 
interests  of  religion.  He  reached  New  York  on  June 
30,  and  was  the  guest  of  the  archbishop.  They  visited 
Washington,  and  saw  the  President,  and  then  went  to 
Milwaukee  and  to  Montreal.  The  nuncio  also  con¬ 
secrated  the  three  new  bishops,  — Bishop  Loughlin,  of 
Brooklyn,  who  had  been  Vicar-General  of  New  York ; 
Bishop  Bayley,  of  Newark,  who  had  been  Archbishop 
Hughes’s  secretary ;  and  Bishop  de  Goesbriand,  of  Bur¬ 
lington,  Vermont.  About  this  time  the  archbishop 
consulted  some  members  of  the  Cabinet  at  Washing¬ 
ton  about  the  appointment  of  a  papal  nuncio  to  the 
United  States;  but  Mr.  Campbell,  the  postmaster- 
general,  wrote  to  him  a  letter  which  showed  that  the 
project  was  not  looked  on  with  favourable  eyes  :  — 

“  In  relation  to  the  establishment  of  a  nunciature  to  this 
country,  the  President  will  receive  a  chargt ,  or  minister 
from  the  Pope;  but  he  can  only,  of  course,  be  received  as 
his  political  representative.  If  his  Holiness  were  to  ap- 


VISIT  OF  THE  NUNCIO. 


119 

point  a  layman,  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  receiving 
him  in  the  same  manner  as  the  representative  of  every 
other  sovereign  power  is  now  received,  charged,  of  course, 
only  with  the  public  affairs  of  the  Pontifical  States.” 

Many  of  the  bishops  of  the  country  were  pleased  to 
hear  that  there  would  be  no  nuncio  at  Washington ;  for 
they  feared  that  if  one  were  appointed  political  in¬ 
fluence  might  be  attempted  in  appointments  in  the 
hierarchy  in  the  United  States. 

The  archbishop’s  health  was  again  breaking  down 
under  his  numerous  labours,  so  he  took  a  trip  to 
Havana,  thence  to  New  Orleans,  and  returned  to 
New  York  in  May.  During  his  absence  some  for¬ 
eign  radicals  and  refugees  from  European  justice 
combined  with  native  bigots  to  insult  and  to  mob 
Monsignore  Bedim  in  Cincinnati,  Wheeling,  and  else¬ 
where.  Even  in  New  York,  they  threatened  him,  and 
watched  the  docks  for  his  departure.  The  charge 
they  brought  against  him  was  that  he  had  been  too 
severe  in  the  administration  of  justice  when  he  was 
papal  legate  at  Bologna,  where  some  revolutionists  had 
been  put  to  death  during  his  administration.  The 
mayor  of  our  city  advised  him  to  go  to  Staten  Island, 
and  from  that  place  of  safety  to  board  the  steamer 
that  was  to  take  him  to  Europe.  The  nuncio  fol¬ 
lowed  the  mayor’s  advice.  When  Archbishop  Hughes 
returned  from  Cuba,  and  heard  of  this  he  was  morti- 
fied  and  angered.  D  2  wrote  at  once  tG  the  nuncio : 


120 


JOHN  HUGHES . 


“  If  I  had  been  in  New  York,  we  should  have  taken  a 
carriage  at  my  door,  even  an  open  one  if  the  day  had  been, 
fine  enough,  and  gone  by  the  ordinary  streets  to  the  steam¬ 
boat  on  which  you  were  to  embark.  You  will,  perhaps,, 
be  astonished  when  I  add,  that  in  such  an  event,  notwith¬ 
standing  the  lying  clamours  of  the  telegraph-wires  and 
the  newspapers,  I  do  not  believe  that  violence  or  insult 
would  have  been  offered  either  to  you,  or  to  me,  or  to  any 
one  of  our  party.** 

Such  was  the  archbishop’s  confidence  in  his  own 
popularity  and  certainty  of  the  fear  which  even  the  most 
desperate  radicals  had  of  his  courage.  Had  a  hair  of 
his  head  been  touched  by  the  foreign  revolutionists, 
their  blood  would  have  watered  the  spot  where  they 
dared  to  insult  him.  He  was  the  idol  of  his  flock,  and 
specially  beloved  by  the  poor  Irish  of  the  city,  who 
were  proud  of  his  ability,  and  loved  him  for  his  bravery- 
An  apostate  priest  named  Gavazzi  was  the  chief  in¬ 
strument  in  circulating  false  stories  about  the  nuncio. 
Gavazzi  continued  to  create  riots  in  many  places  in  the 
country,  even  after  the  nuncio  had  left.  He  was  a 
violent  fanatic,  and  his  intemperate  language  in  abus¬ 
ing  the  Pope  often  provoked  reprisals  from  some  hot¬ 
headed  Catholics  who  went  to  hear  his  harangues. 

The  archbishop’s  next  controversy  was  with  Gen¬ 
eral  Cass,  United  States  Senator  from  Michigan. 
The  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany,  in  virtue  of  the  laws 
existing  in  his  State,  had  imprisoned  the  family  of 
the  Madiai  of  Florence.  The  “  Evangelical  Alliance 


“KNOW-NOTHING”  MOVEMENT. 


12  I 


circulated  the  report  that  this  family  was  put  in  jail 
simply  for  “  reading  the  Bible,”  and  General  Cass 
and  others  were  so  credulous  as  to  believe  the  story. 
Bitter  prejudice  still  existed  in  our  country  against 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  things  were  then  believed 
at  once  which  would  now  be  carefully  examined. 
The  archbishop  showed  that  the  Madiai  were  im¬ 
prisoned  for  public  violations  of  law  and  disturbance 
of  the  public  peace,  and  not  for  “  reading  the  Bible.” 
The  next  foe  which  the  archbishop  encountered  was 
the  New  York  “Times,”  which  had  asserted  the 
existence  of  dissensions  between  the  native  and  the 
foreign  born  bishops  in  the  Church  in  the  United 
States.  Soon  followed  an  attack  on  the  archbishop, 
by  John  Mitchel,  a  leading  member  of  the  Young  Ire¬ 
land  party.  No  one  knows  Mitchel’s  reason  for  this 
attack.  It  certainly  did  not  promote  the  circulation 
of  his  newspaper,  “The  Citizen.”  The  archbishop 
did  not  condescend  to  notice  it,  and  the  circula¬ 
tion  of  the  paper  diminished  in  consequence,  and 
soon  died.  Mr.  Mitchel,  who  was  a  gentleman  of 
honour  and  culture,  afterward  regretted  what  he  had 
done. 

In  1854  a  new  eruption  of  the  “  Anti- Popery  ” 
mania  took  place ;  and  a  political  party  was  formed, 
professing  hostility  to  everything  Catholic,  and  called 
by  the  name  of  the  “  Know-Nothings.”  They  were 
the  legitimate  offspring  of  the  “  Native  American  ” 


122 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


party  of  1844.  The  principles  of  both  parties  were 
the  same.  Street-preachers  from  the  heads  of  barrels 
began  to  abuse  Catholics  and  denounce  “  Popery ;  ” 
while  even  from  the  pulpit,  ministers  of  the  Gos¬ 
pel  of  peace  preached  violent  sermons  and  urged 
violent  measures  against  the  Old  Church.  For  a 
time  New  York,  Louisville,  and  other  cities  seemed 
to  become  like  Londonderry  and  Belfast  in  Ireland 
during  the  anniversary  festivities  of  the  Battle  of  the 
Boyne.  Imported  “  Orangemen,”  who  were  not 
American  citizens  and  who  never  intended  to  be, 
were  prominent  leaders  in  this  “  Know-Nothing  ” 
hostility  to  foreignism  and  to  Catholicity.  The  arch¬ 
bishop,  in  this  crisis,  publicly,  by  writing  and  by  speak¬ 
ing,  warned  his  people  to  keep  away  from  meetings 
in  which  their  nationality  or  their  religion  was  to  be 
discussed,  and  ordered  them  to  avoid  the  street- 
preachers  who  were  tolerated  and  covertly  supported 
by  a  “Know-Nothing”  administration  of  the  city. 
Some  riots  took  place,  and  some  Catholics  were 
killed,  but  the  “  Know-Nothing,”  like  the  “  Native 
American”  party,  being  irrational  and  fundamentally 
Anti-American,  died  and  was  buried. 

On  the  30th  of  September,  1854,  a  provincial 
council  was  held  in  the  archbishop’s  house.  Seven 
bishops  of  the  province,  with  the  archbishop,  were 
present.  This  was  the  first  Provincial  Council  of 
New  York.  In  its  legislation,  it  followed  the  decrees 


PROVINCIAL  COUNCIL. 


123 


of  the  Baltimore  Councils.  It  made  many  laws  for 
the  enforcement  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  and  the 
promotion  of  religious  education.  The  archbishop 
established  a  regular  chancery  in  his  own  diocese  for 
the  regulation  of  matrimonial  dispensations,  and  ap¬ 
pointed  the  Rev.  Thomas  S.  Preston  as  chancellor.  On 
the  1 8th  of  October  the  archbishop  sailed  for  Europe, 
to  be  present  at  Rome  at  the  proclamation  of  the 
dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception ;  that  is,  the 
declaration  that  the  Blessed  Mother  of  God  was  free 
from  original  sin  at  all  times,  even  in  the  very  first 
instant  of  the  union  of  her  soul  and  body.  Bishop 
Timon,  of  Buffalo,  and  the  Rev.  Francis  McNeirny, 
who  afterward  became  Bishop  of  Albany,  accompanied 
him  on  this  voyage.  They  were  in  Rome  on  De¬ 
cember  8,  when  his  Holiness,  Pius  IX,  surrounded 
by  the  cardinals  and  hundreds  of  bishops  from  all 
parts  of  the  world,  infallibly  defined  the  doctrine  that 
Mary,  by  a  special  privilege  in  view  of  her  dignity  as 
Mother  of  God,  was  preserved  from  the  stain  of  origi¬ 
nal  sin  in  which  all  ordinary  mortals  are  conceived 
and  bom. 

Before  returning  home,  the  archbishop  visited  Eng¬ 
land.  He  arrived  in  New  York,  March  27,  1855, 
and  as  usual  began  a  controversy.  This  time  it  was 
with  Erastus  Brooks,  State  Senator  from  New  York, 
and  one  of  the  editors  of  the  “  Express.”  Mr. 
Brooks  was  tainted  with  “  Know-Nothing  ”  preju- 


124 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


dices.  A  bill  was  introduced  into  the  State  Legisla¬ 
ture  in  the  interest  of  the  rebellious  trustees  of  the 
Church  of  St.  Louis,  Buffalo,  to  take  away  from  the 
bishops  the  right  to  hold  Church  property  in  their  own 
name,  and  give  this  right  entirely  to  trustees.  If  this 
bill  had  passed,  the  old  trouble  of  the  trustee  system 
would  have  been  revived.  Mr.  Brooks  urged  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  and  in  a  speech  in  its  favour  told 
the  Senate  that  he  had  found  that  John  Hughes  alone 
was  the  legal  owner  of  five  millions  of  dollars  worth 
of  real  estate,  in  the  city  of  New  York.  Mr.  Brooks 
further  said  that  transfers  of  real  estate  were  made 
“not  to  John  Hughes,  Bishop,  nor  to  John  Hughes, 
Archbishop,  nor  to  John  Hughes,  as  trustee  of  the  great 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  to  plain  John  Hughes.” 
The  archbishop  at  once  publicly  declared  that  Mr. 
Brooks’s  statement  was  false.  Brooks  replied  that 
there  were  fifty- eight  entries  of  real  estate  transfers  to 
the  archbishop.  An  investigation,  however,  showed 
that  there  were  only  forty- six :  several  of  these  were 
duplicates ;  one  or  two  were  leases ;  one  was  a  deed 
for  a  small  bit  of  land  two  inches  wide ;  one  for  the 
half  of  a  burial-vault ;  and  several  related  to  property 
which  was  no  longer  held  by  the  archbishop,  but  had 
been  transferred  by  him  to  religious  communities  or 
to  the  trustees  of  the  cathedral,  or  to  others.  Finally, 
it  was  shown  that  the  actual  deeds  recorded  in  the 
archbishop’s  name  were  only  thirty-three.  This  prop- 


CONTR 0 VERS Y  WITH  ERASTUS  BROOKS.  J25 

erty,  instead  of  being  worth  five  millions,  was  worth 
only  three  hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand  dollars, 
and  was  mortgaged  for  two  hundred  and  forty-five 
thousand  dollars.  The  archbishop  further  showed 
that  he  derived  no  personal  emolument  from  this 
property,  and  that  he  held  it  practically  as  trustee  for 
the  Church  and  for  charitable  purposes.  In  spite  of 
the  archbishop’s  protest,  such  was  the  power  of  the 
“  Know-Nothing”  vote,  at  the  time,  that  the  bill  was 
passed  by  the  legislature,  but  was  never  enforced, 
and  in  1862  it  was  repealed. 

The  archbishop  was  again  charged  with  being  a 
politician  and  of  intermeddling  in  politics.  In  the 
autumn  of  1855  a  report  was  circulated  that  he  was 
using  his  influence  to  elect  the  candidate  of  the 
4t  Soft-Shell  ”  democratic  ticket.  When  he  heard  of 
this  report  he  wrote  “  I  have  never  been,  and  I  never 
intend  to  be,  a  partisan  in  any  political  contest.  I 
hold,  and  have  ever  held,  that  the  position  of  a  clergy¬ 
man  forbids  him  from  taking  any  active  part  in  such 

1 

questions,  and  that  he  could  not  be  a  partisan  without 
at  once  endangering  and  degrading  his  influence  as 
a  priest.”  Still,  if  the  interest  of  religion  required  it, 
he  knew  how  to  use  political  influence,  and  he  con¬ 
sidered  a  priest  always  justified  in  interposing  under 
such  circumstances. 

Cassius  M.  Clay,  a  well-known  politician,  wrote  to 
him  about  this  time  concerning  the  “  Catholic  Vote/' 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


126 

) 

Mr.  Clay  thought  that  the  archbishop  did  or  could 
control  the  political  opinions  and  the  political  actions 
of  his  flock,  and  tried  to  prove  that  Catholics  ought 
to  be  Republicans  rather  than  Democrats.  The 
archbishop  replied :  — 

“  I  never  influenced  a  human  being,  Catholic  or  Protes¬ 
tant,  as  to  the  party  to  which  he  might  think  proper  to 
attach  himself  in  his  capacity  as  a  voting  citizen.  I 
never  voted  but  once  in  my  life,  and  that  vote  was  cast 
nearly  thirty  years  ago  in  favour  of  your  illustrious  name¬ 
sake  and,  I  believe,  relative,  *  Harry  of  the  West.’  He 
was,  in  my  estimation,  a  statesman  as  well  as  an  orator, 
and  I  voted  the  more  readily  because  my  congregation 
were  opposed  to  him,  and  some  of  them  had  almost  threat¬ 
ened  me  on  account  of  my  good  opinion  of  him,  as  a  man 
much  calumniated,  but  of  whom,  as  a  statesman  and 
orator,  his  country  might  well  be  proud.” 

Few  things  in  his  life  are  more  characteristic  of  the 
man  than  this  voting  for  Henry  Clay  in  opposition  to 
the  wishes  and  the  threats  of  a  whole  congregation. 
He  hated  irrational  prejudice  in  politics  as  well  as 
in  religion. 


' 

/ 

CHAPTER  XII. 

His  Hard  Work  from  1855  to  1858.  —  His  Visit  to 
Newfoundland. — Attacks  on  his  Administra¬ 
tion  of  the  Diocese.  —  His  Defence.  —  Apolo¬ 
gia  pro  vita  Sua. 

In  September,  1855,  the  archbishop,  invited  by 
Bishop  Mulloch,  went  to  preach  at  the  consecration 
of  the  new  Catholic  Cathedral  in  St.  John’s  New¬ 
foundland.  He  was  received  with  extraordinary  de¬ 
monstrations  of  honour  and  affection;  the  whole 
Catholic  population  of  the  city,  with  the  bishop  at 
their  head,  turned  out  to  receive  him.  Flags  waved, 
bells  were  tolled,  and  cannon  boomed  when  he  landed ; 
for  he  was  beloved,  admired,  and  honoured  every¬ 
where.  He  travelled  much  through  the  province,  al¬ 
ways  working  hard,  preaching  or  officiating  at  some 
Church  ceremony.  On  his  return  to  New  York,  he 
praised  the  faith  and  the  piety  of  the  Newfoundland 
Catholics  in  an  eloquent  sermon  preached  in  his  own 
cathedral.  His  labours  were  incessant,  visiting  the 
Churches  of  the  diocese,  administering  confirmation, 


128 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


settling  disputes,  and  superintending  the  business  af 
fairs  of  all  the  parishes.  In  January,  1856,  he  lect¬ 
ured  in  Baltimore  before  the  Young  Catholic  Friends’ 
Society,  on  “The  Present  Condition  and  Prospects  of 
the  Catholic  Church  in  the  United  States,”  and  in 
June,  of  the  same  year,  he  lectured  in  Pittsburgh,  on 
“  The  Relation  between  the  Religious  and  Civil  Du¬ 
ties  of  the  Catholic  Citizen.” 

He  was  overworked,  and  even  his  strong  constitu¬ 
tion  could  not  stand  the  continual  strain. 

To  recuperate,  he  tried  exercise  on  horseback ;  but 
he  soon  tired  of  it.  Then  some  of  his  friends  bought 
him  a  country-house  at  Manhattanville,  but  he  sel¬ 
dom  visited  it.  It  was  therefore  sold,  and  a  new  one 
bought  on  Madison  Avenue  and  Thirty- Sixth  Street, 
where  he  lived  until  his  death.  He  made  trips  occa¬ 
sionally  to  the  country  or  to  the  sea-shore ;  but  he 
derived  little  benefit  from  them.  He  had  injured 
his  health  by  too  much  work,  both  physical  and 
mental,  and  by  irregularity  in  taking  his  meals.  He 
sat  up  late  to  read  or  to  study.  He  was  often  so  in¬ 
terested  in  his  mental  work  that  he  forgot  the  hour 
for  dinner.  He  was  afflicted  with  rheumatism  and 
a  complication  of  diseases  the  result  of  exposure 
and  of  excessive  toil.  Sometimes,  however,  the  old 
fire  flashed  again.  When  he  heard  the  bugle  charge 
to  combat,  the  old  war-horse  was  ready  for  the  fray. 
In  December,  1856,  disgusted  with  the  unprincipled 


ATTACK  ON  NS  ADMINISTRATION.  12$ 


character  of  some  Catholic  newspapers,  he  published 
a  noteworthy  article  in  “The  Metropolitan  Record,” 
a  newspaper  controlled  by  him,  on  “  Reflections  and 
Suggestions  in  Regard  to  What  is  called  the  Catholic 
Press  in  the  United  States.”  He  attacked  many  of  the 
Catholic  papers.  There  were  three  classes  of  so-called 
journals  which  he  considered  injurious  to  the  Church  : 
first,  those  of  the  Young  Ireland  stamp,  which  were 
tainted  with  infidelity  and  radicalism ;  second,  those 
which  affected  to  consider  the  Church  in  the  United 
States  as  an  Irish  or  a  German  colony ;  and  the  third, 
those  which  tried  to  Americanize  the  Church,  —  that  is, 
to  minimize  her  doctrines  and  her  discipline  to  suit 
national  prejudices.  Two  prominent  sympathizers 
with  this  last  movement  were  Rev.  Dr.  Cummings,  the 
first  pastor  of  St.  Stephen’s  Church,  and  Dr.  Orestes 
A.  Brownson,  a  convert  from  Protestantism,  and  the 
most  distinguished  review-writer  of  his  time.  Dr. 
Brownson,  in  an  address  to  the  graduates  of  St.  John’s 
College,  in  the  early  summer  of  1856,  spoke  favour¬ 
ably  of  what  was  called  the  “  Americanization  ”  of 
the  Church.  The  archbishop  rose  after  the  doctor 
was  through,  and  publicly  controverted  his  opinions. 
Some  ill  feeling  between  the  archbishop  and  the 
“  American izers  ”  was  the  consequence.  His  article 
on  the  Press  also  displeased  many.  The  ultra-Irish 
and  the  radical  organs,  as  well  as  the  “Liberals,” 
attacked  him.  The  Captain  Dalgettys,  the  mercen- 

9 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


130 

aries  of  the  Catholic  Press  of  his  day,  would  not  listen 
to  his  advice.  It  was  clearly  and  pointedly  given* 
He  wrote :  — 

“  We  advise  that  Catholic  periodicals  abstain  from 
everything  having  a  tendency  to  infringe  on  the  regular 
ecclesiastical  authority  by  which  God  has  been  pleased 
to  appoint  that  his  Church  should  be  governed;  that 
they  shall  not  presume  to  draw  odious  comparisons,  and 
publish  them,  between  the  clergy  of  one  section  of  the 
country  and  those  of  another;  that  they  shall  not  arro¬ 
gate  to  themselves  the  position  of  oracles  or  umpires,  to 
decide  where  is  merit  and  where  is  demerit ;  that  they 
shall  not  single  out  a  clergyman  for  premature  panegyric 
simply  because  he  is  a  patron  of  this  or  that  journal, 
while  they  pass  over  in  silence  other  clergymen  often¬ 
times  of  more  than  equal  worth.” 

His  words  went  home  and  hurt  the  guilty.  His  hot 
shot  provoked  a  reply.  One  of  the  malcontents  at¬ 
tacked  him  in  the  New  York  “  Times,”  in  January, 
1857,  under  the  signature  of  “  Equitas.”  The  editor 
of  the  “  Times,”  Mr.  Henry  J.  Raymond,  published 
the  letter  of  “  Equitas,”  supposing  it  to  be  the  genuine 
production  of  a  venerable  Boston  priest,  whose  name 
was  forged  and  appended  to  it.  While  Mr.  Raymond 
was  in  Europe,  the  same  “  Equitas  ”  published  in  the 
“ Times”  another  attack  more  violent  than  the  first, 
charging  the  archbishop  with  “  maladministration, 
nepotism,  indolence,  arrogance,  and  a  meddling  and 


HIS  DEFENCE. 


131 

petty  spirit ;  ”  “  of  indifference  to  the  Virgin  Mary,” 
for  having  omitted  to  notice  with  due  solemnities 
“the  declaration  of  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception ;  ”  and  of  “  disrespect  to  the  representa¬ 
tive  of  the  Vicar  of  Christ  on  earth,”  because  the 
archbishop  “  turned  his  back  and  fled  to  Cuba,  when 
the  nuncio  of  Pius  IX.,  assailed  by  the  Press,  hooted 
and  stoned  by  the  mob,  and  burned  in  effigy  in 
a  hundred  cities  and  villages,  most  needed  his 
support.” 

The  archbishop  was  sensitive  and  jealous  of  his 
good  name  at  home  and  abroad,  but  particularly  at 
Rome.  He  felt  keenly,  therefore,  this  brutal  attack 
on  his  character  as  a  loyal  Catholic  and  an  arch¬ 
bishop.  His  malicious  and  cowardly  anonymous 
assailant  sent  the  articles  signed  “Equitas  ”  to  many 
bishops  and  even  to  cardinals  in  Rome;  and  he 
feared  that  some  of  them  would  believe  the  state¬ 
ments  made  against  his  character  and  his  adminis¬ 
tration.  He  therefore  answered  the  charges  of 
“  Equitas  ”  in  detail,  and  took  care  that  his  friends 
and  his  enemies  should  read  his  replies.  Speaking 
of  his  conduct  toward  his  flock  he  writes  :  - — 

“  The  circumstances  by  which  I  have  been  surrounded, 
and  the  character  of  the  country  and  people  with  whom  I 
had  to  deal,  did  not  allow  me  to  use,  at  all  times,  that 
meek  and  apostolic  spirit  which  is  so  appropriate  and 
beautiful,  and  for  which  Roman  writers  are  so  specially 


1 32 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


distinguished.  The  people  of  this  country,  and  especially 
those  among  whom  I  have  lived,  have  great  respect  for  a 
manly,  straight-forward,  and  outspoken  vindication  of  any 
rights,  whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  which  men  deem 
worthy  to  be  defended  at  all.  ...  I  had  to  stand  up 
among  these  people  as  their  bishop  and  chief ;  to  warn 
them  against  the  dangers  that  surrounded  them ;  to  con¬ 
tend  for  their  rights  as  a  religious  community ;  to  repel 
the  spirit  of  faction  among  them ;  to  convince  their  judg¬ 
ment  by  frequent  explanations  in  regard  to  public  and 
mixed  questions  ;  to  encourage  the  timid  ;  and  sometimes 
to  restrain  the  impetuous,  —  in  short,  to  knead  them  up 
into  one  dough,  to  be  leavened  by  the  spirit  of  Catholic 
faith  and  of  Catholic  union.” 

The  document  in  which  these  words  are  found,  was 
really  an  Apologia  pro  vita  sua.  He  sent  it  to  Rome, 
and  Cardinal  Barnabo,  the  prefect  of  the  Propaganda, 
was  so  pleased,  after  reading  it,  that  he  sent  the  arch¬ 
bishop  a  message  of  love  and  of  congratulation.  The 
cardinal  expressed  admiration  for  the  penetrating 
mind  of  the  Archbishop  of  New  York,  “  in  judging 
not  only  the  past,  but  also  the  future  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Church.” 

In  the  spring  of  1857  a  priest  from  the  Western 
States,  named  Tracy,  came  to  New  York  in  the  inter¬ 
est  of  parties  who  wished  to  establish  an  Irish  colony 
in  Nebraska,  by  getting  emigrants  from  the  Eastern 
cities.  Father  Tracy  had  much  influential  support 
among  the  clergy  of  our  large  cities,  who  thought 


PROGRESS  OP  THE  CATHOLIC  CHCJRlH.  133 

that  it  would  be  a  blessing  if  the  Irish  poor  could 
be  induced  to  leave  the  cities  and  '‘ullages  and  to 
settle  on  farms  in  the  West.  And  so  it  would  have 
been,  if  the  attempt  to  remove  the  poor  from  the 
congested  centres  in  the  East  had  been  financially 
backed  and  properly  managed.  A  meeting  was  held 
to  further  the  scheme  in  the  old  Broadway  Taber¬ 
nacle.  Many  prominent  laymen  and  well-known 
priests  attended  it.  Father  Tracy  addressed  the 
audience,  but  in  the  midst  of  his  speech  he  was 
interrupted  by  the  archbishop,  who  had  gone  to  the 
gallery  in  disguise.  Fie  showed  the  absurdity  of  the 
projected  undertaking  as  there  was  no  financier  be¬ 
hind  it.  He  catechised  Father  Tracy,  and  finally 
denounced  the  whole  affair.  The  archbishop  was 
right.  The  few  Irishmen  who  went  from  New  York, 
induced  by  the  promises  held  out  to  them,  soon  came 
back  penniless  and  heart-broken. 

The  progress  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  this  State, 
and  the  continual  labours  of  the  archbishop,  may  be 
judged  from  a  letter  which  he  wrote,  May  26,  1858, 
to  his  friend  Bishop  McNally,  of  Clogher  in  Ireland. 
This  was  just  after  the  dedication,  in  East  Fourteenth 
Street,  of  the  new  Catholic  church  under  the  title  of  the 
u  Immaculate  Conception.”  “  You  will  be,  perhaps, 
surprised,”  writes  his  Grace,  “  when  I  mention  that 
this  is  the  ninety-ninth  church  that  has  been  erected 
and  dedicated  under  my  personal  guidance  and  re- 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


134 

sponsibility  Vice  the  period  of  my  appointment  as 
Bishop  of  N^  York ;  and  from  this  simple  fact  you 
will  easily  infer  that  what  remains  of  mind  and  body 
to  one  who  has  gone  through  so  much,  must  be  hence¬ 
forward  of  little  advantage  to  the  Church  or  the  people 
committed  to  my  care.” 

After  such  a  record  of  labour,  no  wonder  fatigue 
oppressed  him.  He  often  entertained  the  idea  of 
resigning  his  office.  He  longed  for  the  leisure,  not 
found  in  an  active  life,  to  read  and  to  study.  He 
even  expressed  a  wish  to  this  effect  to  the  Roman 
authorities.  But  Cardinal  Barnabo,  the  prefect  of 
the  Propaganda,  who  esteemed  and  loved  him,  would 
not  hear  of  a  resignation.  The  archbishop  then 
asked  for  a  coadjutor ;  this  clearly  showed  that  he  had 
broken  down.  It  was  only  a  few  years  before  that 
he  had  said  to  a  friend,  “  They  may  do  what  they  like 
with  the  diocese  when  I  am  under  the  ground,  but  so 
long  as  I  live  there  shall  be  no  coadjutor  bishop  of 
New  York.”  He  now  consulted  his  suffragans,  and 
told  them  his  wishes,  and  even  named  his  choice  for 
the  coadjutorship ;  but  they  begged  him  to  delay. 

They  were  afraid  that  he  would  resign  after  getting  a 

•  _ 

coadjutor ;  for  he  was  very  feeble,  and  began  to  retire 
more  and  more  from  the  public  gaze.  He  sought 
seclusion,  and  seemed  to  decline  any  longer  to  enter 
into  conflict.  The  establishment  of  the  North  Ameri¬ 
can  College  at  Rome,  however,  for  a  time  roused 


AMERICAN  COLLEGE  AT  ROME .  135 

his  energies.  Pius  IX.  proposed,  in  a  letter  to  the 
bishops  of  the  United  States  in  1855,  to  found  this 
college,  and  in  1857  bought  for  that  purpose  the  old 
convent  of  the  Visitation  nuns,  the  Umilta,  in  the 
street  of  that  name  at  Rome.  The  Pope  paid  forty- 
two  thousand  Scudi  for  it,  and  gave  the  use  of  it  to  the 
American  bishops.  The  bishops  were  to  furnish  only 
the  running  expenses.  The  pupils  were  to  attend  the 
Propaganda  course  of  studies.  The  rector  was  to  be 
selected  by  his  Holiness,  from  three  candidates  nom¬ 
inated  by  the  bishops  of  the  United  States.  The 
archbishop  took  the  deepest  interest  in  the.  enter¬ 
prise  ;  and  when  the  college  was  opened,  Dec. 
S ,  1858,  it  contained  many  students  from  New 
York,  and  from  the  suffragan  dioceses.  One  of  the 
first  students  was  Michael  A.  Corrigan,  then  of 
Newark,  New  Jersey,  now  Archbishop  of  New 
York. 

The  building  of  the  new  cathedral  in  Fiftieth  Street 
also  occupied  his  Grace’s  attention.  He  laid  the  cor¬ 
ner  stone  of  it  on  August  15,  1858,  in  the  presence 
of  seven  bishops,  one  hundred  and  thirty  priests,  and 
over  one  hundred  thousand  people.  About  this  time 
the  Atlantic  cable  was  laid  between  Europe  and 
America.  The  archbishop  was  invited  to  the  cere¬ 
monies  at  the  completion  of  this  great  work.  He 
made  one  of  the  addresses  on  the  occasion,  and  was 
present  at  the  banquet  which  followed.  He  con- 


136  JOHN  HUGHES. 

tinued  the  work  on  the  cathedral  until  August,  i86o? 
when  the  walls  were  twelve  or  fourteen  feet  high,  and 
then  stopped  building  for  lack  of  funds,  and  because 
civil  war  had  broken  out  and  disturbed  the  finances 
of  the  country.  Cardinel  McCloskey  completed  the 
work,  except  the  towers  and  some  altars,  which  have 
since  been  erected  by  Archbishop  Corrigan. 

In  1859  and  i860  “The  Roman  Question”  be¬ 
came  unusually  interesting.  The  Sardinian  king  and 
his  ministers  were  plotting  the  destruction  of  the 
Pope’s  temporal  sovereignty,  and  using  every  means 
to  accomplish  their  purpose.  The  chiefs  of  the 
Italian  secret  societies  were  in  their  pay,  and  while 
preaching  a  republic,  were  really  working  to  make 
the  dynasty  of  Savoy  the  ruler  of  all  Italy.  The  plot 
was  to  destroy  the  grand  duchies  of  North  Italy,  ex¬ 
pel  the  Bourbon  dynasty  from  Naples  and  Sicily, 
steal  the  Pope’s  territory,  and  make  a  united  Italy 
under  King  Victor  Emmanuel.  His  prime  minister 
Cavour  was  the  arch  plotter ;  but  the  Emperor  of 
France,  Napoleon  III.,  and  the  ambitious  Bismarck, 
then  prime  minister  of  the  King  of  Prussia,  were  in 
collusion  with  the  Italian  statesman.  The  secret 
societies,  particularly  the  Carbonari,  and  that  reckless 
soldier  of  fortune  Garibaldi,  were  only  pawns  on  the 
Italian  chess-board  at  which  Cavour  sat  and  played. 
But  it  was  difficult  to  destroy  the  papal  temporal  sov¬ 
ereignty,  for  it  was  guaranteed  by  treaties,  and  had. 


SUPPORTS  THE  POPE. 


137 


been  protected  by  a  French  army  of  occupation  since 
1848.  Against  this  sovereignty,  all  arms  were  em¬ 
ployed,  and  all  means  used.  Diplomacy,  conspiracy, 
deception,  slander,  and  finally  fraud  and  violence  were 
Cavour’s  weapons.  Writers  in  France,  and  through¬ 
out  the  whole  of  Europe,  wrote  to  show  that  the 
temporal  power  of  the  Pope  should  be  destroyed, 
and  the  Italian  treasury  was  depleted  in  the  propa¬ 
ganda  of  Sardinian  ambition  and  Mazzinian  plotting. 
A  war  of  pamphlets  was  waged  in  Europe  on  this 
theme.  The  Archbishop  of  New  York,  in  spite  of  his 
many  physical  infirmities,  at  once  took  a  hand  in 
the  fray.  He  wrote  a  pastoral  letter  in  reply  to  the 
European  attacks  on  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope, 
showing  its  necessity  as  a  guarantee  of  the  spiritual 
independence  of  the  Church.  The  Pope  can  be  no 
king’s  subject,  argued  the  archbishop,  because  he  is 
the  head,  not  of  a  national,  but  of  a  universal  Church. 
The  Pope  as  a  subject  of  the  King  of  Italy  may  be 
impeded  by  the  civil  laws  from  the  exercise  of  his 
duties  as  head  of  the  Church,  even  in  Italy ;  his  inter¬ 
course  with  the  rest  of  the  Catholic  world  may  also 
be  impeded,  and  the  Church  may  have  no  means  of 
knowing  whether  papal  documents  or  decisions  are 
genuine  or  not,  since  they  may  be  stopped  at  the 
national  frontier  or  forged  in  an  Italian  post-office. 
In  case  of  war  between  Italy  and  France,  for  instance, 
how  can  French  Catholics  have  free  access  to  the 


138 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


Holy  See  How  could  the  French  bishops  without  be¬ 
ing  accused  of  treasonable  practices,  have  free  inter¬ 
course  with  the  head  of  their  Church,  if  he  be  an  Italian 
subject  ?  Just  as  in  our  republic  there  is  a  small  dis¬ 
trict  set  apart  for  the  central  government  of  the  coun¬ 
try,  —  a  district  distinct  and  independent  of  the  States, 
—  so  in  the  Church  should  there  be  a  small  sover¬ 
eignty  under  the  exclusive  control  of  the  Church,  to 
guarantee  the  freedom  of  her  executive,  and  prevent 
its  being  controlled  by  any  nation.  This  was  the  arch¬ 
bishop’s  line  of  argument.  The  Pope  and  the  cardi¬ 
nals  were  pleased  with  his  pastoral,  and  caused  it  to 
be  translated  into  Italian  and  to  be  published  by  the 
Propaganda  Press  at  Rome. 

In  i860,  suffering  from  a  complication  of  disorders, 
he  made  a  trip  to  the  South,  accompanied  by  his 
chaplain.  At  Charleston,  he  met  Bishop  Lynch  of 
that  see,  and  together  they  travelled  to  St.  Augustine, 
Florida.  After  an  absence  of  four  weeks  he  re¬ 
turned,  much  improved  in  health.  But  he  was  at¬ 
tacked  by  Bright’s  disease  of  the  kidneys,  the  malady 
of  which  he  died.  On  April  4,  i860,  he  wrote  a 
letter  to  the  distinguished  lawyer  Charles  O’Conor,  on 
the  question  of  the  Pope’s  temporal  sovereignty.  In 
this  letter  the  archbishop  says  :  — 

“The  main  thing  is  that  the  spiritual  father  of  more 
than  two  hundred  millions  of  Catholics  all  over  the  globe, 
shall  not  be  a  subject  of  the  King  of  Sardinia,  or  of  the 


SUPPORTS  'i HE  POPE. 


*39 


Emperor  of  France,  or  of  any  other  king  on  the  globe. 
Private  individuals  may  enjoy  freedom  in  a  moderate 
sense  under  any  sovereign  or  even  despot.  But  not  so 
the  Pope.  We  want  the  Vicar  of  Christ  to  be  free ;  and 
this  implies  that  there  must  be  some  portion  of  the  earth 
of  which  he  shall  be  the  recognized  sovereign.  God  knows 
it  might  be  better  to  exercise  the  plentitude  of  power 
without  any  care  of  state;  but  as  the  world  is  consti¬ 
tuted,  this  is  impossible.” 

It  was  proposed  to  hold  a  public  meeting  to  ex¬ 
press  sympathy  with  the  Holy  See  in  its  conflict  with 
the  revolutionists  and  radicals,  and  to  insist  on  its 
right  to  temporal  power.  But  some  prominent  lay¬ 
men,  and  finally  the  archbishop,  thought  it  wiser  to  give 
pecuniary  aid  to  the  Roman  authorities,  rather  than 
mere  expressions  of  sympathy.  Accordingly,  the  arch¬ 
bishop  ordered  collections  to  be  taken  up  in  all  the 
Churches,  and  sent  the  amount  to  his  Holiness,  with  an 
address  signed  by  the  clergy  and  by  the  chief  Catho¬ 
lic  laymen  of  the  city.  On  June  24  he  preached  in 
the  cathedral  a  well-prepared  sermon  on  the  tempo¬ 
ral  power  of  the  Holy  See.  He  took  strong  ground 
against  the  Sardinian  intriguers,  and  argued  that  the 
Pope,  as  an  independent  sovereign,  should  be  allowed 
to  govern  his  own  States  in  his  own  way.  The  ser¬ 
mon  was  attacked  by  many  of  the  secular  and  sec¬ 
tarian  papers,  and  the  archbishop  replied  to  his  critics 
in  the  "  Metropolitan  Record.”  The  papal  collection 


140  JOHN  HUGHES. 

realized  on  this  occasion  the  very  large  amount  of 
fifty-three  thousand  dollars.  This  sermon  was  one  of 
the  best  composed  ever  delivered  by  the  archbishop. 
His  oratory  was  always  forcible  and  impressive,  par¬ 
ticularly  in  his  younger  days.  He  had  a  fine  voice 
and  a  distinguished  presence. 

A  correspondent  for  a  Southern  newspaper,  who  had 
heard  him  preach,  thus  describes  the  archbishop’s 
style  of  preaching  in  his  old  age :  — 

“  One  saw  in  the  preacher  an  elderly  man  in  infirm 
health,  of  bowed  form,  yet  of  striking  appearance.  He 
wore  a  tight-fitting  cassock,  ornamented  with  a  row  of 
red  buttons  down  the  front  and  down  the  sleeves,  and 
surmounted  by  a  doctor’s  cape.  On  his  breast  there  lay 
a  graven  cross  of  gold,  suspended  by  a  heavy  golden 
chain,  and  on  his  finger  appeared  the  episcopal  ring,  which 
flashed  strange  light  into  the  wondering  eyes  of  poor 
Protestants.  The  style  of  the  preacher,  and  the  service 
for  devotion,  were  simple  even  unto  plainness.  He  and 
Father  McNeirny  pulled  aside  the  desk  which  held  King 
James’s  Bible  (it  was  the  Douay  Catholic  Bible,  not  King 
James’s),  so  that  no  screen  separated  him  from  his  audi¬ 
ence.  From  the  reply  of  our  Saviour  to  the  question  of 
the  tempting  lawyers,  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  22d  chapter 
of  St.  Matthew,  he  discoursed  on  love  to  God  and  love 
to  man,  and  the  densely  packed  audience  listened  with 
scarcely  a  stir  for  an  hour  and  three  quarters.” 

But  the  voice  that  could  sway  multitudes  was  grow¬ 
ing  weak  and  was  soon  to  be  stilled  in  death. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


Archbishop  Huches  as  a  Poet. 

The  archbishop’s  letters  and  controversial  writings 
are  so  well  known  and  so  numerous,  that  a  criticism 
on  them  would  require  a  volume  of  its  own.  He 
knew  little  of  the  literature  of  the  modern  foreign 
languages,  except  at  second-hand.  He  was  not  a  lin¬ 
guist;  he  never  had  the  leisure  nor  the  opportunity, 
even  if  he  had  the  inclination,  to  devote  himself  to 
literature  for  its  own  sake.  Whatever  of  it  he  studied, 
however,  he  knew  well.  He  read  the  best  English 
writers  and  modeled  his  style  after  them ;  conse¬ 
quently  it  is  not  disfigured  by  foreign  idioms  or 
phrases.  He  always  wrote  clear,  straightforward,  and 
pungent  English ;  and  some  of  his  works  are  well 
worthy  of  imitation  by  all  who  aim  at  the  acquisition 
of  force  and  precision  in  the  expression  of  thought. 

The  whole  world  knows  him  as  a  polemic  of  the 
first  class ;  but  not  so  many  know  him  as  a  poet.  Yet 
in  his  early  days  he  cultivated  the  muses,  and  has  left 
us  a  few  poems  which  show  an  excellent  imagination 
and  a  facility  for  making  good  verses.  Had  he  con- 


142 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


tinued  to  write  verses,  they  might  have  attained  the 
excellence  of  his  prose.  The  reader  will  perhaps 
thank  us  for  giving  him  a  chance  to  read  a  few  of 
these  poems.  We  quote  also  a  poetical  description 
of  a  storm  at  sea,  written  by  him  after  he  became  a 
bishop.  It  will  show  a  phase  in  his  character  not 
publicly  known ;  that  he  who  was  so  fierce  in  his  in¬ 
vective,  so  biting  in  his  sarcasm,  and  so  inexorable  in 
his  logic  when  dealing  with  an  adversary,  could  be 
tranquil  and  gentle  when  he  wished,  and  paint  a  picture 
from  Nature  with  grace,  elegance,  and  grandeur. 


TO  THE  HOME  OF  MY  FATHERS. 

Does  Freedom  yet  breathe  in  the  bard’s  rustic  number? 

Can  his  harp,  by  the  genius  of  liberty  strung, 

Be  mute,  while  the  land  where  his  forefathers  slumber 
Is  bleeding  in  bondage,  and  bleeding  unsung? 

•  •  ♦  •  •  •  • 

Is  no  Washington  near  thee,  thou  captive  of  ages. 

To  marshal  thy  brave  ones  and  lead  them  to  war? 

Is  no  Franklin  arrayed  in  the  list  of  thy  sages? 

In  that  of  thy  heroes,  no  young  Bolivar? 

Thy  sons  must  forsake  thee,  if  worth  bids  them  cherish 
A  hope  on  the  records  of  glory  to  shine. 

Does  not  Wellington  reign  ?  Had  not  Emmet  to  perish  ? 
The  laurel  is  England’s ;  the  cypress  is  thine. 


TO  THE  HOME  OF  FATHERS. 


143 


But  weep  not,  poor  Erin,  though  Emmet  is  wanting ; 

His  spirit  still  lives  in  the  hearts  of  the  brave. 

There  are  bosoms  behind,  as  devotedly  panting 
For  the  breath  of  the  free  or  the  boon  of  the  grave. 

And  Hope  tells  my  heart  that  a  day  will  be  given, 

When  the  chain  shall  be  loosed  and  their  sorrows  re¬ 
dressed  ; 

When  thou  shalt  go  forth  in  the  pride  of  thy  even, 

As  free  as  the  zephyrs  that  sport  on  thy  breast. 

Oh,  then  shall  thy  harp,  which  has  slumbered  in  sadness, 
Feel  the  pulse  of  fair  Freedom  that  erst  made  it  thrill; 
Then  the  bard  shall  awake  it  in  accents  of  gladness, 

And  sweep  its  wild  chords  on  thy  ever-green  hill. 

And,  oh,  when  the  last  scene  of  Nature  is  closing, 

When  this  spirit  of  mine  shall  burst  forth  and  be  free, 
How  calm  could  I  rest,  on  thy  bosom  reposing, 

Thou  home  of  my  fathers  !  Green  Isle  of  the  sea ! 

Although  this  poem  shows  his  intense  love  for  his 
native  land,  yet  it  is  a  fact  that  he  was  not  clannishly 
Irish.  The  priests  and  the  people  of  other  nationali¬ 
ties  were  happy  under  his  just  and  equable  sway. 

The  following  poem  written  to  a  friend  shows  how 
little  in  youth  he  anticipated  his  future  career :  — 

And,  ah,  when  the  minstrel,  too  proud  or  too  humble 
To  sue  for  a  place  on  the  legends  of  fame, 

Shall  sleep  in  the  tomb,  like  his  fathers  to  crumble, 
Divulge  not,  ^Emilius,  divulge  not  his  name. 


144 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


But  if  in  the  twilight  perchance  thou  shouldst  wander 
To  where  he  shall  slumber,  unhonoured,  unknown, 

Be  the  dirge  thou  wilt  sing  o’er  the  grave  of  Leander, 

“  Here  resteth  a  heart  which  was  part  of  my  own!” 

ODE  TO  DEATH. 

King  conquers  king,  and  slave  his  fellow-slave ; 

But  slave  and  king  shall  fall 
In  thy  sepulchral  hall, 

Whilst  thou  grim  monarch,  shalt  triumphant  wave 

Thy  iron  sceptre  o’er  their  equal  grave, 

Dread  conqueror  of  all ! 

Those  fools  who  fight  for  lords  and  thrones, 

To  thee  at  length  shall  yield 
The  helmet,  lance,  and  shield, 

When  princely  pride  shall  ask  their  dying  groans, 

Or  wish  the  tribute  of  their  valiant  bones, 

To  whiten  on  a  field. 

•  •••••* 

Yet  be  not  proud  in  thy  resistless  sway, 

Thou  scourge  of  human  crime 
In  every  land  and  clime ; 

For  on  the  confines  of  eternal  day 

Thou  too  shalt  fall,  an  angel’s  easy  pre>. 

Upon  the  tomb  of  Time. 

How  he  detested  American  slavery  is  shown  in  the 
following  poem :  — 


I 


THE  SLAVE \  14S 

THE  SLAVE. 

Hard  is  the  lot  of  him  who ’s  doomed  to  toil, 
Without  one  slender  hope  to  soothe  his  pain, 

Whose  sweat  and  labour  are  a  master’s  spoil, 

Whose  sad  reward  a  master’s  proud  disdain. 

Wipe  from  thy  code,  Columbia,  wipe  the  stain; 

Be  free  as  air,  but  yet  be  kind  as  free, 

And  chase  foul  bondage  from  thy  Southern  plain. 

If  such  the  right  of  man,  by  heaven’s  decree, 

Oh,  then  let  Afric’s  sons  feel  what  it  is  —  to  be. 

•  ••••• 

In  hot  meridian  day,  of  late,  I  hied 
To  court  the  covert  of  a  spreading  oak; 

I  sat  beneath,  and  thence,  in  pity,  eyed 
The  negro  moiling  at  his  daily  yoke. 

And  still  he  plied  the  dull,  desponding  stroke 
Beneath  the  scorching  of  the  noon-tide  sun, 

Sullen  and  silent ;  or  if  words  he  spoke, 

I  could  not  hear ;  but  ever  and  anon 
I  heard  the  lash  which  even  brutes  are  fain  to  shun. 

The  ruthless  driver  soon  was  forced  to  yield : 
Though  strong  of  sinew,  still  he  could  not  bear 
The  tyrant  labours  of  the  parching  field, 

But  sought  the  shade  to  breathe  a  cooler  air; 

Whilst,  less  inhuman,  but,  alas !  less  fair, 

The  drudging  slave  began  to  pour  his  song 
Upon  the  heedless  wind,  and  breathe  despair. 

He  sung  the  negroes’  foul,  unpitied  wrong. 

Sad  and  ironical  —  late  he  felt  the  thong. 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


u  Hail  Columbia,  happy  land ! 

Where  Freedom  waves  her  golden  wand. 
Where  equal  justice  reigns. 

But,  ah,  Columbia,  great  and  free, 

Has  not  a  boon  for  mine  and  me, 

But  slavery  and  chains. 

Oh,  once  I  had  a  soothing  Joy, 

The  hope  of  other  years, 

That  free  Columbia  would  destroy 
The  source  of  these  my  tears. 

But  pining,  declining, 

I  still  drag  to  the  grave, 

Doomed  to  sigh  till  I  die, 

Free  Columbia’s  slave. 

“  Hail  Columbia,  happy  land ! 

Whose  sons,  a  free,  a  heaven-born  band, 

Will  free  us  soon  with  blows,  — 

If  freeman’s  freest  blood  were  shed, 

Could  it  be  purer  or  more  red 

Than  this  of  mine  that  flows? 

’T  was  freeman’s  whip  that  brought  this  gore 
That  trickles  down  my  breast ; 

But  soon  my  bleeding  will  be  o’er, 

My  grave  will  yield  me  rest. 

I  will  then,  until  then, 

Abide  my  hard  and  hopeless  lot; 

But  there ’s  room  in  the  tomb 
For  freemen  too  to  rot. 

“  Hail  Columbia,  happy  land ! 

Where  those  who  show  a  fairer  hand 


147 


THE  SLAVE. 

Enjoy  sweet  liberty. 

But  from  the  moment  of  my  birth 
I  slave  along  Columbia’s  earth ; 

Nor  Freedom  smiles  on  me. 

Long  have  I  pined  through  years  of  woe 
Adown  life’s  bleeding  track, 

And  still  my  tears,  my  blood  must  flow, 

Because  my  hand  is  black. 

Still  boiling,  still  toiling, 

Beneath  the  burning  heats  of  noon, 

I,  poor  slave,  court  the  grave; 

O  Columbia,  grant  the  boon! 

“  Hail  Columbia  hap  —  ” 

He  ceased  the  song,  and  heaved  another  sigh  ' 

In  silent,  cheerless  mood ;  for,  ah,  the  while 
The  driver’s  hated  steps  were  drawing  nigh. 

Nor  song  of  woe,  nor  words  dare  then  beguile 
The  goaded  sorrows  of  a  thing  so  vile. 

Yet  such  the  plaintive  song  that  caught  my  ear, 

That  cold  humanity  may  blush  to  smile, 

When  dove-eyed  Mercy  softly  leans  to  hear, 

And  Pity  turns  aside  to  shed  another  tear. 

Certainly  no  poet  of  the  “Native  American”  or 
old  “  Know-Nothing  ”  party  could  sing  more  loyally 
than  he  does  of  the  land  he  loved,  and  for  whose 
liberty  and  union  he  spent  the  last  years  of  his  life  in 
toil. 


'JOHN  HUGHES. 


» 


148 


JUBILEE  OF  AMERICAN  FREEDOM. 

Great  Lord  of  creation,  we  owe  it  to  thee, 

That  our  country  is  kingless,  our  people  are  free  ! 

Oh,  grant  a  like  boon  to  that  ill-fated  Isle 

Where  the  ruled  are  as  brave  as  their  rulers  are  vile*, 

Where  genius  illumines,  and  minds  are  sincere; 

Where  hearts  beat  in  bosoms  that  never  felt  fear. 

Yes,  children  of  freemen,  your  fathers  could  tell 
How  the  Irishman  fought,  till  he  conquered  or  fell; 
How  the  hero  stood  still  when  the  heartless  were  flying ; 
How  Arnold  betrayed  while  Montgomery  was  dying ! 
Poor  Erin,  thy  sons  shall  have  fame  in  our  story ; 

Their  sickles  were  mixed  in  our  harvest  of  glory. 
Columbia  invites  thee  to  rise  and  be  free, 

Till  she  call  thee  her  sister,  thou  gem  of  the  sea. 

But,  hark  !  Oh,  that  song  swelling  higher  and  higher ! 
’T is  the  voice  of  Columbia,  attuned  to  the  lyre; 

^T  is  her  thankgiving  anthem,  and  millions  combine 
In  the  chorus  of  love  around  Liberty’s  shrine. 

u  Peace  to  the  patriot,  setting  in  glory; 

His  eye  hath  grown  dim,  and  his  locks  have  grown  hoary. 
He  balanced  no  sceptre,  he  cushioned  no  throne ; 

He  was  wise  for  his  country,  his  country  alone. 

“  Peace  to  the  ashes  of  heroes  that  sleep 
In  the  battle-field  grave,  or  the  cells  of  the  deep; 

Their  deeds  be  the  theme  of  both  story  and  art, 

But  their  names  are  inscribed  in,  the  book  of  my  heart. 


A  STORM  AT  SEA. 


149 


“  The  holy  inheritance  their  blood  hath  won 
Shall  descend  in  succession  from  father  to  son 
Till  the  trumpet-tongued  angel  check  Time  in  his  flight, 
And  the  dawn  of  eternity  burst  on  my  sight. 

“  Peace  to  my  sons,  and  my  rosy-crowned  daughters, 

My  mountains,  my  oceans,  my  cities,  my  waters ! 

And  peace  to  the  stranger  whom  tyrants  oppressed ; 
Let  him  come  to  my  bosom  and  slumber  at  rest. 

CHORUS. 

**  Lt  is  Liberty’s  jubilee,  swell  the  loud  chorus  ! 

Half  an  age  hath  gone  by,  —  there  are  whole  ones  before 
us; 

That  iron  chain,  rent  by  our  fathers  of  old, 

Is  not  fit  for  sons,  though  its  links  were  of  gold.” 

The  following  is  really  a  prose  poem,  written  at  sea. 
It  shows  how  much  he  loved  Nature,  and  how  well  he 
could  describe  her :  — 

“  On  the  31st  I  was  gratified  with  a  spectacle  which  I 
had  often  desired  to  witness,  —  the  condition  of  the  sea 
during  a  tempest.  .  .  .  After  a  breeze  from  the  north  and 
northwest  of  about  sixty  hours’  continuance,  the  wind 
died  away  about  four  o’clock.  The  calm  continued  until 
about  nine  o’clock  in  the  evening,  as  if  the  wind  had 
ceased  to  blow,  excepting  a  few  puffs  that  were  floating 
about,  bewildered,  and  not  knowing  what  to  do  with  them¬ 
selves.  In  the  interval  the  mercury  in  the  barometer  had 
fallen  at  an  extraordinary  rate,  and  the  captain  predicted 
that  we  were  likely  to  encounter  *  a  gale  ’  from  the  south- 


JOHN  HUGHES . 


*5° 

east.  I  did  not  hear  the  remark  at  the  time,  or  I  should 
not  probably  have  gone  to  bed.  The  gale  came  on,  how¬ 
ever,  at  about  eleven  o’clock,  —  not  violent  at  first  but 
increasing  every  moment.  I  slept  soundly,  as  usual,  until 
half-past  five  in  the  morning,  although  I  had  a  confused 
and  dreamy  recollection  of  a  good  deal  of  rolling  and 
thumping  during  the  night,  occasioned  by  the  unsteady 
course  of  the  ship  and  the  dashing  of  the  waves. 

“  On  the  deck,  most  of  the  passengers  had  by  this  time 
congregated.  I  found  them  clinging  to  whatever  they 
could  hold  on  by  around  the  doors  of  the  hurricane  house, 
and  looking  on  in  silence  and  consternation.  ‘Ha!  ha!* 
I  said  to  myself,  *  this  is  what  I  have  been  wanting,  but 
c}  est  un  peu  trop?  It  was  still  quite  dark.  Four  of  the 
principal  sails  were  already  in  ribbons.  The  winds  were 
howling  through  the  cordage,  the  rain  dashing  along 
furiously  and  in  torrents,  while  the  noise  and  whirl-gusts 
of  spray  reminded  one  of  the  scene  behind  the  great  cata¬ 
ract  of  Niagara.  In  the  midst  of  all  this  were  the  cap¬ 
tain  with  his  speaking-trumpet,  the  officers  and  sailors 
screaming  out  to  each  other  in  their  efforts  to  be  heard, 
and,  incredible  as  it  may  seem  and  should  be,  swelling  the 
gale  with  their  oaths  and  curses.  All  this,  taken  together, 
in  the  darkness,  or  rather  twilight,  of  the  hour,  and  the 
fury  of  the  hurricane,  combined  as  much  of  the  terribly 
sublime  as  I  ever  wish  to  witness  concentrated  in  one 
scene.  This  was  but  the  commencement  of  the  gale, 
which,  however,  had  taken  us  by  surprise,  and  borrowed 
additional  terrors  from  the  darkness  and  suddenness  with 
which  it  came  upon  us.  It  lasted  twenty-four  hours,  so 
that  through  the  whole  of  that  day  I  had  an  opportunity 
of  enjoying  at  leisure,  a  scene  which,  apart  from  the 


A  STORM  A  T  SEA.  15 1 

danger,  would  be  at  any  time  worth  a  voyage  across  the 
Atlantic. 

The  hurricane  did  not  acquire  its  full  force  until  about 
nine  o’clock.  By  that  time  there  was  no  more  work  to  be 
done.  The  vessel  “lay to,”  as  they  term  it,  and  those 
who  had  charge  of  her  stood  by  only  to  see  and  meet 
whatever  disaster  might  occur.  It  was  now  breakfast¬ 
time,  but  cooking  had  been  out  of  the  question  and  appe¬ 
tite  was  nearly  so.  My  own  was  excellent,  —  especially 
for  the  small  allowance  of  a  fast  day.  By  this  time  the 
sea  had  put  on  its  hurricane  billows,  and  not  to  lose  the 
opportunity,  after  having  fortified  myself  with  appropriate 
clothing,  I  took  my  position  on  a  part  of  the  quarter-deck 
from  which  I  could  survey  the  whole  scene  around  the 
ship  undisturbed,  and  with  entire  safety  to  myself  so  long 
as  her  strong  works  should  hold  together.  I  had  often 
seen  and  admired  paintings  of  a  storm  at  sea,  and  my  rec¬ 
ollections  of  them  enabled  me  to  compare  them  with  the 
original,  by  which  I  was  now  surrounded.  Those  paint¬ 
ings,  in  general,  are  true  so  far  as  they  go;  but  after  all, 
how  feeble  is  the  representation,  and  how  destitute  of 
those  accompaniments  which  art  cannot  supply!  In  the 
painting  you  have,  it  is  true,  the  ship  and  the  sea  agitated 
by  the  storm,  but  motion  —  the  very  life  and  spirit  of  the 
subject  —  is  lost  in  the  imitation;  it  is  arrested,  and  the 
whole  becomes  stationary  as  the  canvas  itself.  Imagina¬ 
tion,  indeed,  comes  to  the  painter’s  aid  in  this  perhaps 
more  than  any  other  subject  of  the  mere  physical  order. 
But  not  for  the  eye  alone  has  the  sea-storm  the  many 
parts  by  whose  wild  harmony  it  becomes  at  once  beauti¬ 
ful,  terrible,  and  sublime.  For  even  could  the  pencil  be 
successful  in  representing  it  so  far  as  the  eye  is  con- 


152 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


cemed,  there  would  still  be  wanting  the  rushing  of  the 
tempest,  the  groaning  of  the  spars  and  masts,  the  quick,, 
shrill  whistling  of  the  cordage  and  rigging,  and  more 
than  all,  the  ponderous  dashing  of  the  uplifted  deep.  .  .  . 
The  weather  was  thick  and  hazy,  more  especially  along 
the  surface  of  the  sea.  It  was  impossible  to  see  more 
than  three-quarters  of  a  mile  in  any  direction;  but 
within  this  contracted  horizon  you  saw  the  mountain 
waves  rising  suddenly  out  of  the  darkness  on  one  side, 
and  rushing  and  tumbling  across  the  valleys  that  re¬ 
mained  from  the  passage  of  their  predecessors,  until,  like 
them,,  they  rolled  away  into  darkness  on  the  other  side. 
These  waves  were  not  either  numerous  or  rapid  in  their 
course,  but  their  massiveness  and  elevation  were  such  as 
it  seems  a  tempest  alone  has  power  to  produce.  It  must 
have  been  the  refraction  of  light  falling  on  their  sides 
that  gave  to  these  waves,  especially  near  their  summit,  the 
most  beautiful,  clear,  green  colour,  as  if  they  were  com¬ 
posed  of  irregular  and  disturbed  heaps  of  molten  and  trans¬ 
parent,  emerald-crowned  water  with  a  topping  of  white 
foam,  which,  as  the  wave  approached,  would  spill  itself 
over  on  the  side  nearest  you  and  come  tumbling  down 
with  the  dash  of  a  cataract.  Not  less  magnificent  than 
the  waves  themselves  were  the  valleys  of  different  and 
varying  dimensions  that  remained  between  them ;  their 
waters  had  lost  for  a  moment  the  onward  motion  of  the 
billows,  but  they  were  far  from  being  at  rest.  Under 
their  scarf  of  foam  they  preserved  the  same  green  colour 
of  the  mighty  insurgents  that  had  passed  over  them.  But 
the  symptoms  of  violence  which  had  been  presented  to 
the  eye,  boiling  and  wheeling  about  rapidly  in  currents 
and  eddies,  with  the  surface  glowing  and  hissing  as  if  it 


V  ■  \ 

'  .  • '  •  .•  '•  \  S  ' 

*>  *  \  '  .  ,  •'  ,  .  *  s  f  c  f 

'  *  *  i 

^  STORM  AT  SEA.  153 

had  come  in  contact  with  red-hot  iron,  all  showed  that 
even  these  low  places  were  not  unvisited  by  the  storm, 
but  that  its  angry  spirit  had  descended  into  its  depths, 
ready  to  heave  them  up  into  all  the  rushing  violence  of 
the  general  commotion.  It  was  impossible  not  to  be  im¬ 
pressed  with  a  deep  feeling  of  awe  at  the  universal 
majesty  of  that  God  who  has  created  and  preserves  all 
this  wondrous  combination  of  the  elements.  The  Scrip¬ 
tures  speak  of  him,  in  the  midst  of  thunder  and  lightning, 
as  riding  in  the  whirlwind  and  walking  on  the  deep,  and 
at  such  a  moment  how  could  I  forget  His  presence  who 
alone  unbinds  or  restrains  the  fury  of  winds  and  waves  at 
his  pleasure?  Here  they  were  raging  with  indescribable 
fierceness,  and  yet  man,  of  such  limited  strength  as  to  his 
physical  structure,  was  now  in  the  act  of  triumphing  over 
their  fierceness.  By  using  his  reason,  —  that  feeble  ray 
of  the  divine  intelligence  which  has  been  imparted  to  him, 
—  he  builds  his  house  on  the  foundation  of  the  waters 
and  the  tempest  cannot  overturn  it.  .  .  . 


t- 


1m  “  • 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


His  Patriotism.  —  His  Assistance  to  the  Govern¬ 
ment  during  our  Civil  War.  —  His  Mission 
to  Europe  to  help  the  Cause  of  the  United 
States.  —  Interview  with  Napoleon  III.  —  Re¬ 
turn  to  New  York.  —  His  Last  Sermon. — The 
Draft-Riots.  —  His  Speech  to  the  Mob.  —  His 
Last  Sickness  and  Death. 

Archbishop  Hughes,  like  other  great  Irish  Catholics 
such  as  Daniel  O’Connell  and  the  Rev.  Father  Mat¬ 
thew,  the  apostle  of  temperance,  was  a  foe  of  negro 
slavery,  and  of  slavery  of  every  description.  He  had 
suffered  from  slavery  at  home,  and  therefore  sympa¬ 
thized  with  all  who  were  oppressed.  In  his  early 
days,  when  he  had  cultivated  a  taste  for  poetry,  he 
wrote  the  verses  in  which  he  urged  Columbia  “to 
chase  foul  bondage  from  her  Southern  plain.”  He 
also  expressed  himself  as  opposed  to  the  institu¬ 
tion  of  slavery,  in  his  controversy  with  Dr.  Breckin¬ 
ridge  ;  but  the  archbishop  was  not  an  Abolitionist. 
He  was  opposed  to  Northern  interference  with  the 
domestic  institutions  of  the  South.  When,  therefore, 


HIS  PATRIOTISM. 


155 


Daniel  O’Connell,  Father  Matthew,  and  other  promi¬ 
nent  Anti-slavery  Irishmen  published  an  address 
which  the  Abolitionists  tried  to  use  for  their  illegal 
purposes,  the  archbishop,  explaining  his  views,  wrote 
a  letter  to  the  “Courier  and  Enquirer,”  in  March, 
1842.  He  says  in  it:  “I  am  no  friend  to  slavery, 
but  I  am  still  less  friendly  to  any  attempt  of  foreign 
origin  to  abolish  it.”  He  believed  in  the  Monroe 
doctrine,  that  no  foreigners  should  be  allowed  to  inter¬ 
fere  in  American  affairs ;  and  that  if  foreigners  came 
to  live  here,  they  should  become  loyal  citizens  of  the 
republic  and  give  up  their  allegiance  to  foreign  poten¬ 
tates.  After  seeing  and  studying  the  condition  of  the 
negro  slaves  in  Cuba  and  in  our  Southern  States,  his 
views  became  quite  moderate,  and  he  feared  and 
opposed  all  plans  which  aimed  at  the  sudden  emanci¬ 
pation  of  a  people  unprepared  for  liberty.  He  thought 
that  a  violent  or  an  unprepared  emancipation  would  be 
injurious  to  the  negroes  both  physically  and  morally. 
In  this  he  disagreed  with  the  distinguished  convert. 
Dr.  Orestes  Brownson,  who  openly  advocated  their 
immediate  emancipation.  Then  some  enemies  went  so 
far  as  to  accuse  the  archbishop  ot  being  in  favour  of 
the  slave-trade.  This  calumny  was  often  repeated, 
and  was  published  in  some  of  the  French  newspapers, 
in  1861  and  1862,  when  he  was  in  Paris.  He  there 
took  occasion  to  deny  the  charge,  stating  that  although 
he  was  opposed  to  Abolitionism,  he  was  not,  “never 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


156 

had  been,  and  never  could  be  an  advocate  of  slavery.” 
He  advocated  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  each  State 
by  its  own  local  and  legal  authority,  and  not  by  Con¬ 
gress.  In  a  letter  to  Bishop  Lynch,  of  Charleston,  in 
August,  1861,  we  find  these  words:  — 

“  I  am  an  advocate  for  the  sovereignty  of  every  State 
in  the  Union  within  the  limits  recognized  and  approved 
by  its  own  representative  authority  when  the  constitution 
was  agreed  on.  As  a  consequence,  I  hold  that  South 
Carolina  has  no  State  right  to  interfere  with  the  internal 
affairs  of  Massachusetts;  and  as  a  further  consequence, 
that  Massachusetts  has  no  right  to  interfere  with  South 
Carolina  in  its  domestic  and  civil  affairs,  as  one  of  the 
sovereign  States  of  this  now  threatened  Union.” 

He  was  a  strong  Union  man,  and  zealously  opposed 
the  rebellion  of  the  South.  He  wrote  in  May,  1861, 
to  a  Southern  bishop,  — 

“  The  South  has  taken  upon  itself  to  be  judge  in  its 
own  cause,  to  be  witness  in  its  own  cause,  and  to  execute, 
if  necessary,  by  force  of  arms  its  own  decision.  In  a  con¬ 
stitutional  country  this  means  either  revolution  or  rebel¬ 
lion,  since  there  are  tribunals  agreed  upon  by  North  and 
South,  and  supported  by  both  for  a  period  of  more  than 
seventy  years.  When  these  tribunals  are  set  aside,  and 
men  appeal  to  the  sword,  the  Federal  Government  has 
only  to  abdicate,  or  meet  sword  with  sword.” 

The  archbishop  never  changed  these  views.  When 
the  central  Government  was  engaged  in  war  for  the 


HIS  A SS IS T A NCE  TO  GOVERNMENT.  157 

restoration  of  the  Union,  and  after  President  Lincoln’s 
emancipation  proclamation,  the  archbishop  boldly 
declared  himself  in  favour  of  the  strongest  measures 
for  the  support  of  the  Federal  authority.  He  gave 
every  help  that  he  could  to  the  Government,  and  it 
was  very  great,  for  he  was  regarded  as  the  leader  of 
-all  the  Catholics  in  the  country.  He  corresponded 
frequently  with  his  old  friend  Mr.  Seward,  the  Secre¬ 
tary  of  State,  and  showed  the  foresight  of  the  states¬ 
man  as  well  as  the  ability  of  a  great  military  leader  in 
this  correspondence.  He  saw  the  necessity  of  keep¬ 
ing  a  large  army  between  Richmond  and  Washington, 
-and  pointed  out  the  strategic  importance  of  Cairo  on 
the  Mississippi.  He  studied  the  geography  and  the 
strategic  points  of  the  country  like  a  military  man, 
and  became  intensely  interested  in  the  struggle  and 
in  the  movement  of  the  troops.  He  urged  on  Mr. 
Seward,  even  as  early  in  the  war  as  April,  1861,  the 
necessity  of  keeping  an  army  of  at  least  one  hundred 
thousand  men  about  Washington.  He  thought  it 
better  to  incur  great  expense  at  once,  “in  order  to 
save  greater  expense  in  the  feeble  drag  of  a  contest 
wherein  the  forces  are  entirely  or  nearly  balanced.” 
He  wrote  :  — 

“  Let  the  question  of  the  rights  of  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  over  the  whole  country  be  settled  once  and  forever. 
Let  there  be  no  compromise  until  the  States  shall  be  dis¬ 
posed  to  return  to  their  allegiance  to  the  Federal  Govern- 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


158 

ment,  which  they  themselves  contributed  to  create,  and 
from  which  nothing  new  in  the  legislation  of  the  Federal 
Government  has  given  them  the  slightest  pretext  for 
seceding ;  let  there  be  no  recognition  of  the  pretended 
government  of  the  Confederate  States,  no  negotiation 
with  them  as  such,  but  ample  kindness  toward  the  States 
taken  one  by  one.” 

He  declared  the  rebel  privateers  “  essentially 
pirates ;  ”  and  that  the  American  cruisers  ought  to 
sink  them  as  pirates.  Again  he  writes  to  Mr.  Seward  : 
“  Old  Cato  used  to  say  *'  delenda  est  Carthago  !  * 1  I 
would  say,  ‘Augenda  est  Cairo!’”2  He  wanted 
Cairo  well  protected  and  fortified  so  as  to  control 
the  Mississippi  River.  Yet  he  advised  mildness  and 
kindness  wherever  possible.  Still  writing  to  Mr. 
Seward,  he  said  :  — 

“  There  is  only  one  word  I  would  add ;  and  that  is,  that 
in  your  effort  to  bring  back  the  Southern  States  to  their 
condition  before  the  war,  you  would,  as  far  as  it  would  be 
consistent  with  the  high  principle  of  supreme  govern¬ 
ment,  be  as  patient  and  as  considerate  toward  the  State 
authorities  of  this  so-called  confederacy  as  possible. 
Conquest  is  not  altogether  by  the  sword.  Statesmanship, 
and  especially  in  our  circumstances,  may  have  much  to  do 
with  it.  But  no  backing  down  of  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment.  ...  I  am  getting  old,  and  it  is  time  for  me  to  begin 
to  gather  myself  up  for  a  transition  from  this  world  to 
another,  and  as  I ,  hope  a  better.  I  know  that  this  world 

1  Carthage  must  be  destroyed. 

2  Cairo  must  be  strengthened. 


HIS  MISSION  TO  EUROPE.  159 

would  have  gone  on  well,  just  as  well  as  it  has  done, 
had  I  never  lived.  At  the  same  time,  as  I  mentioned 
in  my  first  letter,  I  have  not  been  able  to  sever  my 
thoughts  and  my  feelings  from  what  has  occurred  al¬ 
most  under  my  eyes,  in  the  only  country  which  I  call 
mine,  and  to  which  I  am  devoted  by  every  prompting 
of  my  understanding,  and  by  every  loyal  sentiment  of 
my  heart.” 

In  this  note  how  strongly  marked  is  the  patriotism 
.  of  the  great  archbishop  !  Who  could  love  his  country 
more  than  he  ?  That  love  was  in  the  very  core  of  his 
heart. 

Mr.  Seward,  to  whom  these  letters  were  written, 
answered  that  he  had  shown  them  to  President 
Lincoln,  who  was  so  well  pleased  with  the  last  one 
that  he  caused  a  copy  of  it  to  be  made  for  his 
own  special  use.  The  President  had  already  written 
to  him  on  Oct.  21,  1861,  asking  his  aid  in  the 
appointment  of  Catholic  chaplains  for  the  army 
hospitals.  President  Lincoln  had  the  most  profound 
respect  for  his  ability  and  for  his  holy  office. 

In  October,  1861,  he  was  invited  by  Mr.  Seward 
to  go  to  Washington  for  a  private  conference.  Messrs. 
Mason  and  Slidell  had  a  short  time  before  gone  to 
Europe  as  Commissioners  from  the  Southern  Confed¬ 
eracy,  to  influence,  if  possible,  England  and  France  in 
its  favour.  To  counteract  their  efforts,  the  United 
States  Government  asked  Archbishop  Hughes  to  go  to 
France,  and  Mr.  Thurlow  Weed  to  go  to  England. 


160  JOHN  HUGHES. 

Both  sailed  together  from  New  York  on  November  6. 
The  archbishop  was  also  accompanied  by  his  private 
secretary,  the  Rev.  Francis  McNeirny.  When  they 
arrived  in  Paris,  his  Grace  called  on  the  American 
minister,  Mr.  Dayton,  and  then  wrote  to  Mr.  Seward 
from  the  Hotel  de  V Empire :  “  Mr.  Dayton  is  the  rep¬ 
resentative  of  our  Government.  So  am  I ;  but  in  a 
different  order.  For  I  would  have  been  its  repre¬ 
sentative  under  any  possible  circumstances  so  far  as 
concerns  a  right  to  think  and  speak  in  behalf  of  the 
only  nation  on  the  face  of  the  earth  to  which  I  owe 
allegiance  and  loyalty.”  The  archbishop’s  letters  to 
Mr.  Seward  showed  great  diplomatic  talent.  He  had 
interviews  in  Paris  with  M.  Thouvenel,  the  French 
minister  of  foreign  affairs,  and  finally  with  the  emperor 
and  the  empress  of  the  French.  He  tried  to  impress 
on  his  hearers  the  futility  of  the  Southern  attempt  to 
break  up  the  United  States.  He  pointed  out  the 
strength  of  the  Union  cause  and  the  folly  of  any  for¬ 
eign  government  attempting  to  support  the  Southern 
Rebellion. 

He  had  a  long  interview  with  Napoleon  III.  and 
the  empress,  whom  he  tried  to  disabuse  of  their  preju¬ 
dices  against  the  North.  Said  the  empress  toward 
the  close  of  this  interview :  — 

“  How  can  this  blockade  be  sustained  along  so  ex¬ 
tensive  a  coast?  It  cannot  last.  Napoleon  I.  had 
that  topic  in  his  mind  during  the  war  with  England; 


INTERVIEWS  NAPOLEON  III  161 

and  with  all  his  immense  capacity  *he  gave  it  up  as 
impracticable.” 

The  archbishop  replied  :  — 

“  Imperial  lady,  if  Napoleon  I.  had  been  acquainted,  for 
maritime  purposes,  with  the  power  of  steam  and  the  veloc¬ 
ity  of  electric  communication  by  telegraph,  his  dynasty 
would  not  have  suffered  an  interruption ;  and  where  Eng¬ 
land  would  be  at  this  day  under  such  circumstances  it 
would  be  hazardous  to  say.” 

His  interview  with  their  Majesties  was  long  and  cor¬ 
dial  ;  and  his  words  produced  a  profound  impression. 

From  Paris,  in  January,  i862,he  wrote  to  Secretary 
Seward,  urging  the  necessity  of  coast  defences  and 
fortifications  in  the  United  States.  His  love  of  the 
country  of  his  adoption  had  complete  possession 
of  his  soul.  He  left  Paris  in  February  of  the  same 
year  and  visited  Ireland,  defending  the  United  States 
Government  wherever  he  travelled,  and  winning 
sympathy  for  the  North  in  her  struggle  against  re¬ 
bellion.  His  presence  in  the  Green  Isle  was  hailed 
with  enthusiasm.  The  personal  attachment  of  the 
Irish  for  him,  he  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  United 
States.  He  had  much  to  do  with  creating  the  gen¬ 
eral  sympathy  of  the  Irish  in  Ireland  for  the  Union 
cause;  and  the  knowledge  of  this  sympathy  pre¬ 
vented  England  from  taking  sides  with  the  Southern 
Confederacy.  The  archbishop  wrote  to  Mr.  Seward 

that  the  English  Government  could  not  recruit  an 

ii 


*62 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


army  in  Ireland  to  fight  against  the  United  States ; 
the  people  of  Ireland  hated  England  too  much  on 
their  own  account  to  co-operate  with  any  attempt  to 
destroy  the  American  republic  which  they  loved. 

Later  in  February  ne  went  to  Rome,  and  there 
again  at  the  centre  of  Christianity,  used  all  his  influ¬ 
ence  to  create  sentiments  favourable  to  the  Union 
cause.  His  letters  to  Mr.  Seward  give  an  account 
of  his  travels  and  interviews  with  prominent  people, 
and  tell  of  his  efforts  to  convert  those  who  favoured 
the  rebels.  He  saw  the  Pope,  and  pointed  out  the 
error  and  the  wrong  of  the  rebellion.  On  February 
2 1  he  writes  to  Mr.  Seward  :  “  The  Holy  Father  has 
been  particularly  kind.  He  and  Antonelli 1  both  speak 
of  you  with  kind  remembrance  and  with  great  re¬ 
spect.”  Of  President  Lincoln  he  writes  :  “  There  has 
been  no  president  of  the  United  States  more  capable, 
more  honest,  more  moderate,  more  safe  and  reliable 
than  the  actual  incumbent  who  is  at  the  head  of  the 
country.” 

The  archbishop  lodged  at  the  American  College 
during  his  stay  at  Rome.  He  became  so  ill  that  it 
was  feared  he  would  die ;  still  again  and  again  he 
rallied.  The  city  contained  a  large  number  of 
strangers  who  had  come  to  witness  the  ceremony  of 
the  canonization  of  the  Japanese  martyrs,  put  to 
death  in  the  time  of  Saint  Francis  Xavier  for  profess- 

1  The  great  secretary  of  state  of  Pius  IX. 


HIS  MISSION  TO  EUROPE. 


163 


ing  the  Christian  faith.  This  ceremony  took  place  in 
June,  1862.  The  archbishop  was  a  conspicuous  figure 
among  the  prelates  present.  Distinguished  people 
from  all  over  the  world  called  to  pay  their  respects  to 
him.  Some  of  the  Southern  Catholics  were,  however, 
bitterly  hostile  to  him,  and  complained  that  his  in¬ 
fluence  had  prevented  England  and  France  from 
recognizing  the  Southern  Confederacy.  Although 
very  infirm,  he  took  part  in  many  Church  ceremonies, 
and  once  officiated  at  the  devotion  of  the  “  Stations 
of  the  Cross  ”  in  the  Colosseum,  where  he  was  fol¬ 
lowed  by  thousands  of  pilgrims.  On  April  4  he 
wrote  to  his  sister,  Mrs.  Rodrigue :  — 

“  I  do  not  like  to  describe,  and  I  am  sure  you  will  not 
like  to  read,  of  the  attentions  that  are  paid  to  me  by 
dukes,  princes,  cardinals,  and  marquises,  and,  I  believe  I 
mentioned  before,  by  the  Holy  Father  himself.  These 
are  as  numerous  and  as  distinguished  as  if  I  could  trace 
back  my  genealogy  to  the  fourteenth  century.” 

Among  these  manifestations  of  honour  he  must 
have  often  thought  with  humility  of  the  time  when 
he  worked  as  a  day-labourer  on  the  roadside  in 
Pennsylvania. 

On  leaving  Rome  he  intended  to  go  to  Spain  to 
see  the  prime  minister,  O’Donnell,  who  had  expressed 
a  desire  to  meet  him  and  learn  the  condition  of  the 
Spanish  interests  in  the  Antilles,  concerning  which 
the  archbishop  had  many  documents.  But  his  health 


164 


JOHN-  HUGHES. 


prevented  him  from  going  to  Madrid.  On  June  25 
he  was  at  Aix-les-Bains  in  Savoy.  Thence,  after  a 
short  stay,  he  travelled  through  France  and  England 
to  Ireland,  where  he  was  to  preach  at  the  laying  of 
the  corner-stone  of  the  Catholic  University  in  Dublin. 
This  event  took  place  on  July  20.  His  text  on  the 
occasion  was  :  “  Woe  to  you,  lawyers  !  for  you  have 
taken  away  the  key  of  knowledge :  you  yourselves 
have  not  entered  in,  and  those  that  were  entering  in 
you  have  hindered.”  (St.  Luke  xi.  52.)  Wherever 
he  travelled  in  Ireland  crowds  gathered  to  greet 
him.  He  disliked  the  English  Government  because 
of  its  attempt  to  help  the  Southern  Rebellion ;  and  he 
had  also  the  natural  antipathy  of  the  Irishman  for  the 
oppressor  of  his  religious  faith  and  of  his  native  land. 
In  those  days  all  the  English  parties  were  opposed  to 
Ireland  and  to  the  United  States.  He  made  a  strong, 
anti-English  speech  in  the  Dublin  Rotundo  before  an 
immense  audience.  He  spoke  particularly  of  the  re¬ 
sentment  of  Americans  on  account  of  English  un¬ 
friendliness  to  their  country  in  its  hour  of  peril.  “  I 
tell  you,  gentlemen,”  said  he,  “  that  even  if  peace  was 
restored  to  the  whole  country  of  America  to-morrow, 
the  people  would  scarcely  unbelt  themselves  until 
they  had  put  other  questions  to  right.  They  feel 
sore ;  they  feel  that  their  national  dignity  has  been 
attacked ;  that  in  the  moment  of  their  trial  and  diffi¬ 
culty,  an  ungenerous  attack  has  been  made  on  them. 


RETURN  TO  NEW  YORK.  165 

and  they  have  unfortunately  treasured  up  the  memory 
of  that  attack  with  a  feeling  of  revenge.” 

On  July  31  we  find  him  in  the  South  of  Ireland 
at  Cork,  where  the  people  gave  him  a  dinner.  A 
few  days  later  he  sailed  from  Queenstown  in  the 
“  Scotia,”  and  reached  New  York  on  August  12. 
His  clerical  fellow-passengers  on  the  steamer  were 
Archbishops  Wood,  of  Philadelphia,  and  Purcell,  of 
Cincinnati ;  Bishop  McCloskey,  of  Albany ;  the  Rev. 
Dr.  McNeirny,  now  bishop  of  Albany ;  the  Rev.  Henry 
A.  Brann,  D.  D.,  the  first  priest  of  the  American  Col¬ 
lege  at  Rome ;  and  the  Rev.  Joseph  W.  Stenger,  of 
St.  Sulpice,  Paris,  and  now  rector  of  the  Catholic 
Church  in  Charleston,  West  Virginia.  On  the  arch¬ 
bishop’s  arrival,  the  whole  city  turned  out  to  greet 
him.  The  municipal  authorities  presented  him  with 
congratulatory  addresses.  After  a  few  days’  rest  he 
went  to  Washington.  There  he  was  invited  to  dinner 
by  Secretary  Seward.  The  day  fixed  for  the  dinner  was 
Friday,  and  the  archbishop  suggested  that  it  was  not 
a  good  day  for  a  banquet.  “  Never  mind,”  said  the 
secretary,  “  I  shall  see  that  you  will  be  provided  for.” 
When  the  very  large  and  distinguished  company  met 
in  the  dining  hall,  there  was  no  meat  of  any  kind  on 
the  table.  All  were  compelled  to  eat  fish.  The 
archbishop  often  said  that  this  was  the  most  delicate 
compliment  ever  paid  to  him.  Mr.  Lincoln’s  Gov¬ 
ernment  soon  after  intimated  to  the  Holy  See  that  it 


1 66  JOHN  HUGHES . 

would  be  pleased  if  the  archbishop,  who  had  done  so 
much  for  the  country,  should  be  raised  to  the  dignity 
of  cardinal.  The  matter  was  taken  into  consideration 
at  Rome. 

The  sea  voyage  as  usual  had  revived  him.  The 
Sunday  after  his  return  from  Washington,  he  delivered 
a  discourse  before  an  immense  crowd  in  the  cathe¬ 
dral  in  Mott  Street.  Many  of  the  people  were  tired  of 
the  war.  There  was  much  discontent  at  the  expenses 
incurred  by  the  Government,  and  at  the  failure  of 
many  of  the  generals  to  put  down  the  rebellion.  All 
longed  for  peace,  and  regretted  the  loss  of  life  and 
treasure,  and  some  were  ready  for  any  compromise 
that  could  be  made  with  the  South.  But  the  arch¬ 
bishop  in  this  discourse  urged  the  people  to  finish  the 
war  at  once  by  putting  forth  all  their  strength. 

“  If  I  had  a  voice  in  the  councils  of  the  country,”  he  ex¬ 
claimed,  “  I  would  say  let  volunteering  continue ;  if  the 
three  hundred  thousand  on  your  list  be  not  enough  this 
week,  next  week  make  a  draft  of  three  hundred  thousand 
more.  It  is  not  cruel,  this.  This  is  mercy;  this  is  hu¬ 
manity.  It  is  necessary  to  be  true,  to  be  patriotic,  to  do 
for  the  country  what  the  country  needs,  and  the  blessing 
of  God  will  recompense  those  who  discharge  their  duty 
without  faltering  and  without  violating  any  of  the  laws  of 
God  or  man.” 

This  address  was  denounced  by  many  of  the  arch¬ 
bishop’s  own  flock,  as  well  as  by  the  “  Copperheads” 


HIS  LAST  SERMON, \ 


1 67 


of  the  country,  —  a  name  given  to  friends  of  the  South, 
living  in  the  North,  who  favoured  peace  at  any  price. 
Complaints  were  sent  to  Rome  against  him,  charging 
him  with  overstepping  the  boundaries  of  his  sacred 
office.  The  “Courier  des  Etats  Unis,”  the  French 
organ  in  New  York,  was  particularly  severe  on  him. 
The  archbishop  answered  his  critics  in  the  “  Metro¬ 
politan  Record ;  ”  and  also  made  answer  to  them  at 
Rome,  through  his  friend,  Rev.  Dr.  Bernard  Smith,  a 
learned  Benedictine  monk  for  years  a  professor  of 
theology  in  the  Propaganda  College. 

On  December  15  he  writes  to  Dr.  Smith  an  ac¬ 
count  of  the  purchase  of  the  new  seminary  of  St. 
Joseph  at  Troy.  The  property  cost  sixty  thousand 
dollars.  In  his  letter  to  Dr.  Smith,  who  was  his  agent 
with  the  Propaganda,  the  archbishop  declares  his  in¬ 
tention  of  putting  the  seminary  under  the  control  of 
the  Sulpicians,  —  a  body  of  holy  and  learned  priests 
organized  by  Father  Olier  in  France,  for  the  training 
of  young  men  for  the  priesthood,  —  and  speaks  of  the 
prosperity  of  the  colleges  under  the  Jesuit  Fathers  of 
his  diocese.  He  tells  also  of  the  flourishing  condition 
of  the  academies  for  girls  under  the  charge  of  the  Sis¬ 
ters  of  Charity,  of  the  Sisters  of  Mercy,  of  theUrsu- 
line  nuns,  of  the  Ladies  of  the  Sacred  Heart,  and  of 
other  religious  orders.  He  speaks  of  the  well-estab¬ 
lished  reformatories  for  boys  and  girls,  and  of  the 
House  of  the  Good  Shepherd  ”  for  fallen  women. 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


H- 


1 68 


which  had  then  one  hundred  and  thirty  inmates.  He 
also  describes  the  orphan  asylums,  and  mentions  a 
new  one  just  founded  for  the  Germans.  He  wanted 
the  Propaganda  to  see  that  his  devotion  to  the  in¬ 
terests  of  his  country  had  not  interfered,  as  was 
charged,  with  the  administration  of  his  diocese ;  and 
he  asked  Dr.  Smith  to  translate  his  letter  into  Italian, 
and  present  it  to  Cardinal  Barnabo. 

The  founding  of  St.  Joseph’s  Seminary  at  Troy,  for 
the  education  of  candidates  for  the  priesthood,  was 
the  archbishop’s  last  work.  His  health  again  broke 
down,  and  his  strength  was  ebbing  away ;  the  end  was 
fast  approaching.  He  lived  in  Madison  Avenue  with 
his  sister,  Mrs.  Rodrigue.  Here  he  spent  his  time. 
Though  he  ceased  to  write  for  the  newspapers,  he 
read  them  as  carefully  as  ever.  Paintings  pleased 
him ;  he  had  made  a  good  collection  of  them  during 
his  visits  to  Europe.  In  1857,  while  in  Rome,  the 
Pope  and  Cardinal  Antonelli  gave  him  several  beau¬ 
tiful  works  of  art,  which  he  admired  very  much  and 
showed  with  pleasure  to  visitors  and  strangers. 

On  Holy  Thursday,  April  2,  1863,  nine  months 
before  his  death,  he  said  Mass  for  the  last  time. 
After  that  date,  he  often  tried  to  say  it,  but  weakness 
compelled  him  to  give  up  the  attempt.  He  was  never 
a  heavy  eater,  but  now  his  appetite  almost  completely 
failed.  He  disliked  to  be  consulted  about  his  meals.. 
Sometimes  he  would  spend  the  whole  day  without 


THE  DRAFT-RIOTS . 


169 


eating  anything  but  a  light  breakfast.  He  amused 
himself  sometimes  by  playing  billiards,  on  a  table  in 
his  house,  with  an  imaginary  adversary.  He  then 
took  to  studying  geography,  and  spent  hours  poring 
over  the  globes ;  or  he  applied  himself  to  astronomy. 
His  intellectual  appetites  seemed  to  grow  with  the 
decrease  of  bodily  strength.  It  became  for  a  time 
almost  a  passion  with  him  to  have  his  globes  carried 
on  a  fine  summer  evening  to  the  top  of  his  stable,  and 
there  for  hours  to  study  the  stars.  His  love  for  the 
Greek  and  Latin  classics  also  returned  with  old  age. 

His  last  sermon  was  in  June,  1863,  at  dedica¬ 
tion  of  St.  Teresa’s  Church.  In  this  discourse,  his 
intense  patriotism  again  showed  itself.  He  urged  on 
all  the  necessity  of  praying  and  working  for  the  wel¬ 
fare  of  the  country.  “  We  must  pray,”  said  he,  “  I 
do  not  say  for  peace,  which  appears  at  this  moment 
ridiculous,  since  there  is  only  one  that  can  give  peace, 
and  the  other  won’t  have  it.  We  may  pray  the  Al¬ 
mighty  to  bring  matters  to  a  conclusion.  One  side 
may  make  war,  but  it  requires  two  to  make  peace.” 

In  July  he  went  to  Baltimore  to  attend  the  funeral 
of  Archbishop  Kenrick,  who  had  died  very  suddenly. 
A  day  or  two  after,  the  great  draft-riots  broke  out  in 
New  York.  For  several  days  the  city  was  at  the 
mercy  of  a  mob  which  robbed,  murdered,  and  com¬ 
mitted  every  kind  of  outrage.  The  governor  of  the 
State,  Horatio  Seymour,  called  on  the  archbishop  to 


170 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


aid  him  in  putting  down  the  riots.  The  governor 
knew  the  great  influence  which  the  archbishop  had 
over  the  New  York  populace,  and  so  he  wrote  on  July 
14  to  the  aged  prelate  :  — 

“  Will  you  exert  your  powerful  influence  to  stop  the 
disorders  now  reigning  in  this  city?  I  do  not  wish  to 
ask  anything  inconsistent  with  your  sacred  duties  ;  but  if 
you  can  with  propriety  aid  the  civil  authorities  at  this 
crisis,  I  hope  you  will  do  so.” 

The  archbishop  was  willing  to  do  what  he  could, 
and  so  he  issued  an  address  to  the  rioters,  inviting 
them  to  come  and  listen  to  him,  as  he  was  not  able 
to  go  to  them. 

They  did  not  come,  however,  for  their  leaders  and 
the  greater  part  of  them  were  not  members  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  But  in  their  stead  came  several 
thousand  of  the  poor  and  industrious  labouring  class, 
who  were  suffering  from  the  effects  of  the  war,  and 
who  were  not  able  to  purchase  substitutes.  He 
spoke  to  them  in  a  feeble  and  broken  voice,  and 
advised  them  to  go  home  and  live  in  peace.  They 
cheered  him,  promised  to  obey  his  words,  and  dis- 
persed.  This  speech  plainly  showed  that  his  mental 
vigour  as  well  as  his  physical  strength  were  fast  going. 
In  the  following  August  and  September  he  sought  re¬ 
creation  by  the  sea-shore,  but  his  health  was  not  much 
benefited  even  by  the  sea  air.  Early  in  December  he 
was  compelled  to  take  to  his  bed.  He  was  not  ex- 


SICKNESS  AND  DEATH. 


171 


pected  to  live  beyond  Christmas.  The  doctors  finally 
said  that  he  could  not  recover.  On  December  29  his 
Vicar- General,  Father  Starrs,  and  his  devoted  secre¬ 
tary,  Father  McNeirny,  told  him  what  the  physicians 
had  said.  When  he  heard  it,  his  only  words  were, 
“  Did  they  say  so  ?  ”  He  was  not  afraid  to  die.  He 
made  his  confession  to  the  Rev.  William  Quinn,  after¬ 
ward  Vicar-General  of  New  York,  who  gave  him  the 
last  sacraments,  extreme  unction,  and  holy  commun¬ 
ion.  On  Sunday,  Jan.  3,  1864,  the  venerable  Jesuit, 
Father  McElroy,  said  Mass  in  the  room  of  the  dy¬ 
ing  archbishop.  He  died  about  seven  o’clock  on  the 
evening  of  the  same  day.  Bishop  McCloskey,  who 
afterward  became  his  successor,  was  present  at  the 
last  moment,  and  recited  the  prayers  for  the  dying. 
The  other  principal  persons  in  the  room  at  the  time 
were  Bishop  Loughlin,  of  Brooklyn,  Vicar- General 
Starrs,  and  Father  McNeirny,  and  the  archbishop’s 
two  sisters.  The  funeral  took  place  on  January  7, 
the  anniversary  of  his  consecration.  Eight  bishops 
and  several  hundred  priests  attended  the  solemn  re¬ 
quiem  Mass  celebrated  on  the  occasion  by  the  Right 
Rev.  Bishop  Timon,  of  Buffalo.  Bishop  McCloskey, 
of  Albany,  preached  the  funeral  sermon. 

Archbishop  Hughes  was  a  self-made  man,  one  of  a 
class  for  which  our  country  is  remarkable.  Our  in¬ 
stitutions,  which  foster  and  develop  individualism, 
putting  no  limit  to  the  aspirations  or  the  possibili- 


172  ' 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


ties  of  natural  ability  or  genius,  are  the  nursing  mother 
of  men  like  Hughes,  —  men  of  grit,  of  courage,  of  tal¬ 
ent,  and  of  perseverance.  He  rose  by  sheer  strength 
of  character  and  natural  genius  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest  rank.  Everything  was  against  him  when  he 
landed  on  our  shores.  His  race  and  religion  were 
despised.  He  had  very  little  education,  no  money, 
and  no  powerful  friends.  He  began  as  a  day- 
labourer  in  the  fields  and  on  the  roadside.  Almost 
without  friends  he  succeeded ;  he  persisted.  He 
had  formed  a  purpose  and  he  would  realize  it.  He 
studied;  he  prayed.  With  God  and  manly  courage 
he  conquered  every  difficulty.  He  had  the  faith,  the 
valour,  the  irrepressibility,  and  the  piety  of  the  old  Irish 
race.  His  piety  led  him  into  the  sanctuary ;  but  if 
he  had  not  become  a  priest,  there  was  material  in  him 
to  make  a  great  general,  a  great  lawyer,  a  great  poli¬ 
tician,  or  a  great  statesman.  If  he  had  not  become 
a  bishop,  he  would  have  ranked  in  another  career 
with  other  distinguished  men  of  his  race,  with  Gen¬ 
eral  Sheridan,  Marshal  Nugent,  Count  Taafe,  O’Con¬ 
nell,  O’Donnell,  or  O’Conor.  He  was  physically  as 
brave  and  as  daring  as  the  gallant  soldier  who  made 
the  wonderful  ride  down  the  Shenandoah  valley.  Had 
he  lived  in  the  Middle  Ages  he  would  have  prob¬ 
ably  been  made  Pope,  and  ranked  with  Gregory  VII. 
or  Alexander  III.  He  would  never  have  yielded  to 
the  despotism  of  a  king  or  to  the  violence  of  a  mob. 


HIS  CHARACTER . 


173 


The  mob  might  kill  him,  but  he  would  die  with  his 
face  to  the  foe.  He  would  not  have  been  merely 
passive  in  a  fight ;  his  courage  was  active  and 
aggressive.  If  the  “  Know-Nothings  ”  had  dared 
to  carry  out  their  threats,  the  archbishop  himself 
would  have  planned  and  led  the  defence  of  his 
people  and  of  his  Church.  He  would  never  be 
found  in  the  rear  of  a  battle.  With  what  a  sol¬ 
dier’s  eye  he  followed  the  fights  of  the  Civil  War, 
and  with  what  Napoleonic  intuition  he  saw  the 
strong  and  the  weak  points  of  the  campaigns  of 
our  generals  ! 

He  had  the  diplomatic  talent  of  a  Richelieu. 
Secretary  Seward,  who  was  himself  a  clever  statesman, 
recognizing  his  power  and  influence,  saw  in  Arch¬ 
bishop  Hughes  an  equal,  if  not  a  superior,  to  himself 
in  the  art  of  governing  men.  No  one  did  more  than 
the  first  Catholic  archbishop  of  New  York  for  our 
country  in  her  hour  of  peril,  by  his  influence  both 
at  home  and  abroad.  Let  us  hope  that  some  day 
our  grateful  citizens,  remembering  his  patriotism,  and 
all  his  services  to  his  country,  will  erect  to  his 
memory  a  statue  to  perpetuate  his  fame.  It  should 
be  erected  near  that  of  his  friends,  the  great  secretary 
of  state,  Seward,  and  the  great  war-president,  Lincoln. 
Less  worthy  citizens  have  received  this  homage  after 
their  death. 

But  whatever  our  citizens  or  the  State  may  do  to 


*74 


JOHN  HUGHES. 


keep  his  memory  green,  the  Catholic  Church  in 
America,  and  especially  in  New  York,  will  never  for¬ 
get  his  invaluable  services.  He  found  her  on  the 
ground,  despised  and  dejected.  He  lifted  her  up 
and  made  her  respectable.  She  was  looked  upon 
as  the  despised  sect  of  foreign  immigrants ;  he  made 
her  respected  and  feared.  How  he  fought,  and  how 
he  despised,  and  how  he  struck  those  who  assailed  her  ! 
He  freed  her  from  the  slavery  of  unprincipled  lay¬ 
men  who  intruded  into  the  sanctuary  and  usurped 
ecclesiastical  power.  He  crushed  the  schismatic  and 
uncanonical  “  trustee  system  ”  with  one  blow  of  his 
strong  crozier.  He  stood  in  front,  like  a  giant,  deal¬ 
ing  death  blows  to  prejudice  and  bigotry.  He  ex¬ 
posed  them  to  public  contempt  and  ridicule  by  his 
trenchant  logic,  his  cutting  sarcasm,  and  his  clear 
statement  of  the  truth.  He  fought  for  God,  his 
Church,  and  his  country.  If  he  did  not  succeed  in 
everything,  his  failures  were  few.  He  failed  to  secure 
the  blessings  of  religious  education  for  the  children 
of  the  public  schools.  But  his  arguments  in  this 
cause  live  after  him,  and  have  never  been  answered. 

He  was  a  man  both  feared  and  loved ;  but  no  one 
hated  or  could  hate  him.  Even  those  who  feared 
him,  admired  him.  He  was  so  open,  so  just,  so  fair, 
so  impartial,  and  so  manly  in  his  fight  for  what  he 
thought  right.  I  crossed  the  ocean  with  him  in  1862. 
I  was  then  a  young  priest,  returning  home  from  the 


HIS  CHARACTER . 


175 


Eternal  City.  He  was  coming  back  after  his  mission 
to  Europe,  where  he  had  done  so  much  to  keep 
France  and  England  from  recognizing  the  Southern 
Confederacy.  I  remember  how  he  used  to  stand  in 
the  evening  in  some  sheltered  spot,  surrounded  by  a 
group  of  passengers  anxious  to  catch  a  word  from 
his  lips.  Every  one  listened  to  him  as  to  a  chief,  a 
leader,  an  oracle.  He  stood  among  the  passengers 
like  one  born  to  command.  He  seemed  the  owner 
of  the  vessel,  and  he  looked  as  if  he  could  command 
the  very  waves.  I  remember  how  he  defended  our 
national  Government  from  some  who  were  criticis¬ 
ing  it ;  how  warmly  he  praised  our  free  institutions, 
showed  the  error  of  the  Southern  secession,  and  the 
necessity  of  sticking  to  the  Union.  His  voice  was 
clear,  his  manner  quiet,  but  his  words  were  forcible, 
and  silenced  the  critic. 

The  free  institutions  of  America  were  almost  as 
dear  to  him  as  his  Christian  faith.  Take  him  all  in 
all  he  was  not  only  the  greatest  prelate  the  Catholic 
Church  in  America  has  ever  had;  but  he  was  as 
great  and  as  good  a  citizen  as  ever  deserved  well  of 
the  American  republic.  Let  her  do  him  honor  ! 


Deo  et  patriae . 


*. 


/ 


*  4 

i 

'l 

1 

INDEX. 


A. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  108. 

American  College  at  Rome  founded 
by  Pius  IX.,  135. 

“American,  Native,”  party,  88. 
Annaloghan,  the  place  of  his  birth, 
13- 

Anti-Slavery  Address  of  Irishmen, 
I55* 

Antonelli, Cardinal,  162. 

Apologia  pro  vita  sua ,  132. 

Arath,  Bishop  of,  43. 

Atlantic  cable,  the  laying  of,  135. 

“  Aurora,”  a  newspaper,  90. 


B. 

Bangs,  Dr.,  75. 

Bardstown,  27. 

Barnabo,  Cardinal,  132;  letter  to, 
132  ;  refuses  resignation  of  Bishop 
Hughes,  134. 

Bay  ley.  Bishop,  of  Newark,  118. 
Bedini,  Monsignore,  118 ;  is  mobbed, 
1 19. 

Benton,  Mr.,  108. 

Biddle,  Mr.,  115. 

Bond,  Dr.,  75. 

Brann,  Rev.  Henry  A.,  165. 
Breckenridge,  Dr.,  48 ;  controversy 
with,  49. 


Brownson,  Dr.  O.  A.,  129,  155. 

Brute,  Rev.  Father,  a  sketch  of  his 
life,  27. 

Butts,  Major,  115. 

C. 

Calhoun,  JohnC.,  108. 

Campbell,  postmaster-general,  n8. 

Cathedral,  building  of  the  new,  135; 
building  stopped  for  lack  of  funds, 
136 ;  Cardinal  McCloskey  com¬ 
pletes  the  work,  136. 

Catholic  emancipation  won  in  the 
year  1829,  by  O’Connell,  14. 

Catholic  political  party,  81. 

Catholic  population  of  New  York 
in  1838,  58. 

“Catholic  Vote,  The,”  125. 

Cavour  plots  the  overthrow  of  the 
Pope’s  territory,  136. 

“Centinel,  The  Adams,”  a  news¬ 
paper,  31. 

Chambersburg,  the  home  of  John 
Hughes  in  the  new  world,  21. 

Church  Property  Bill  of  1855,  91. 

“  Church  Register,”  an  Episcopa¬ 
lian  newspaper,  43. 

Churches  dedicated  by  Bishop 
Hughes,  133. 

Clay,  Henry,  126, 

Coadjutor,  Archbishop  Hughes  ap¬ 
plies  for,  134. 


12 


178 


INDEX. 


College,  American,  at  Rome,  found¬ 
ed,  135,  162. 

“Commercial  Advertiser,”  99. 

Controversy,  First,  with  Rev.  W. 
H.  Delancey,  an  Episcopalian 
clergyman,  43 ;  Second ,  exposing 
“The  Protestant,”  45;  Third, 
“  The  Breckenridge,”  51-53  ;  with 
David  Hale,  88  ;  with  “  Kir  wan,” 
100;  with  the  “Tribune,”  112; 
with  General  Cass,  120 ;  with 
Erastus  Brooks,  123 ;  with 
“Equita?”  131 ;  with  “Courier 
des  l£tats  Unis,”  167. 

“  Controversy,  School,”  65  ;  close  of, 
80;  Governor  Seward’s  sympa¬ 
thy,  81. 

“Conversion  and  Edifying  Death  of 
Andrew  Dunn  ”  (a  book  written 
by  Bishop  Hughes),  38. 

Conwell,  Bishop,  32  ;  makes  an  ille¬ 
gal  surrender  of  his  rights,  35. 

“Copperheads,”  166. 

Corrigan,  Michael  A.,  attends  the 
American  College  at  Rome,  135  ; 
as  Archbishop,  completes  the  ca¬ 
thedral,  136. 

Council  of  Baltimore,  sixth,  101. 

Council,  first  provincial,  of  New 
York  in  1854,  122. 

“  Courier  and  Enquirer,”  99. 

“  Crammer,”  45. 

Cummings,  Rev.  Dr.,  129. 


D. 

Dayton  American  Minister,  160. 

“  Death,  Ode  to,”  a  poem  by  Bishop 
Hughes,  144. 

Debt  of  Church  in  New  York  in 
1841,  88. 

Delancey,  Rev.  W.  H.,  43. 


Delaney,  Col.  Sharp,  11$, 

Deluol,  Rev.  Mr.,  103. 

De  Smet,  Father,  92. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  108. 

Dubois,  Rev.  John,  sketch  of  his 
life,  25. 

“  Dunn,  Andrew,”  39. 

E. 

Eccleston,  Archbishop,  63. 

Emancipation  proclamation,  151. 

“  Equitas  ”  attacks  Bishop  Hughes,  _ 
130;  Bishop  Hughes’s  answer  to, 
13I* 

Eugenie,  Empress,  161. 

F. 

Flaget,  first  bishop  of  Bardstown,  27. 

Fordham,  101. 

“Franklin  Repository,”  a  news¬ 
paper,  28. 

“  Freeman’s  Journal,”  The,  106. 

Frenaye,  Mr.,  a  friend  of  Father 
Hughes,  47. 

G. 

Galitzin,  Father,  a  Russian  Prince, 
46. 

Galitzin,  Madame,  first  superioress  of 
the  Manhattanville  Academy,  87. 

Gavazzi,  an  apostate  priest,  120. 

George  IV.  signs  bill  of  Catholic 
emancipation,  42. 

Greeley  Horace,  114. 


H. 

Henry  /V.,  39. 
Herald,  99. 


INDEX. 


179 


Herald,  Catholic,  40. 

Heyden,  Father,  36. 

Hill,  Rose,  86. 

Hogan,  an  unworthy  priest,  35. 

u  Home  of  my  Fathers,”  a  poem,  142. 

Hughes,  John,  works  as  a  laborer 
at  Emmittsburg,  24 ;  obtains 
work  as  a  gardener  at  Mount 
Saint  Mary’s,  26;  enters  the  col¬ 
lege  in  1820,  26;  he  teaches  at 
Mount  Saint  Mary’s,  27 ;  his  first 
controversy,  28 ;  gaining  a  reputa¬ 
tion  as  an  orator,  30 ;  cultivates 
poetry,  31;  ordained  priest,  32; 
made  pastor  of  Saint  Joseph’s 
Church,  36 ;  converts  to  the 
Catholic  Church  through  the 
means  of  the  sermons  of  Father 
Hughes,  40 ;  charities  founded 
by  him,  40;  appointed  coadjutor 
to  the  Bishop  of  New  York,  56 ; 
establishes  a  theological  seminary, 
59  5  goes  t°  Europe,  visits  the 
Leopoldine  Society  of  Austria, 
receives  a  large  donation  for  his 
new  seminary  of  Saint  John’s  at 
Fordham,  66 ;  meets  Daniel 
O’Connell  and  speaks  from  the 
same  platform  with  him,  66  ; 
great  speech  on  school  question, 
75 ;  life  menaced,  81 ;  speech  at 
Carroll  Hall,  81 ;  forms  a  Catholic 
party,  81 ;  opposed  by  the  politi¬ 
cians,  83 ;  wonderful  activity,  91 ; 
financial  plans,  91  ;  anecdote,  92  ; 
cows  the  “  Native  American  ” 
mobs,  95  ;  compels  Mayor  Harper 
to  do  his  duty,  98  ;  threat  to  assas¬ 
sinate  him,  98  ;  attacks  the  “New 
York  Herald”  and  the  “Com¬ 
mercial  Advertiser,”  99;  patriot¬ 
ism,  99 ;  visits  Europe,  100 ;  sym¬ 
pathy  with  Irish  patriots,  104, 105 ; 


attacks  D’Arcy  McGee  and  the 
“Young  Ireland”  faction,  106; 
defends  the  temporal  power  of  the 
Pope,  107;  daily  labor  described, 
no,  in  ;  is  made  an  Archbishopj 
1 12;  attacks  Kossuth,  114;  ousts 
the  trustees  of  Saint  Peter’s 
Church,  1 16;  confidence  in  his 
popularity,  120;  controversy  with 
Erastus  Brooks,  124;  is  charged 
with  being  a  politician,  125  ;  only 
vote  for  Henry  Clay,  126;  hard 
work  from  1855  to  1858,  127;  vis¬ 
its  Newfoundland,  127;  health 
gives  way,  128;  lectures  in  Balti¬ 
more  and  Pittsburgh,  128 ;  at¬ 
tacks  on,  130;  Cardinal  Bamabo 
refuses  his  resignation,  134 ;  asks 
for  a  coadjutor,  134;  pastoral 
letter  on  the  temporal  power  of 
the  Pope,  137 ;  makes  a  trip  to 
the  South,  travels  to  St.  Augus¬ 
tine,  Florida,  138;  letter  to 
Charles  O’Conor,  138;  replies  to 
his  critics  on  temporal  power,  139; 
sermon  on  the  temporal  power, 
139;  a  Southern  newspaper  de¬ 
scribes  his  style  of  preaching, 
140;  poems,  142;  description  of  a 
storm  at  sea,  149;  patriotism,  154  ; 
opposition  to  negro  slavery,  1 54  ; 
assists  the  government  during  the 
Civil  War,  158  ;  goes  to  Europe 
to  help  the  government,  160  ;  in¬ 
terviews  Napoleon  III.,  160;  last 
sermon,  169;  speech  to  the  mob, 
170;  last  sickness  and  death,  170, 
1 71;  character,  171,  et  seq. 

X. 

“Immaculate  Conception,”  Church 
of,  i33' 


INDEX. 


180 

Intriguers,  Sardinian,  against  the 
Holy  See,  139. 

Ireland,  condition  of,  in  1840,  66. 
Irish  soldiers  in  our  Revolutionary 

War,  1 15. 


J. 

Journal  of  Commerce,  90. 

“Jubilee  of  American  Freedom,” 
148. 

K. 

Keating,  Col.,  115. 

Kenney,  Rev.,  a  Jesuit  father,  54. 
Kenrick,  Bishop,  sketch,  43. 
Ketchum,  Hiram,  75. 

“  Kirwan,”  100 ;  unmasked,  109. 
Know-Nothing  party,  99. 

Knox,  Dr.,  75. 

Kossuth,  1 14. 


L. 

Lafargeville,  59. 

Levins,  Rev.  Thomas  C.,  44. 
Limerick,  Treaty  of,  19. 

Lincoln,  President,  157. 

Loco-foco  party,  85. 

Loughlin,  Bishop,  of  Brooklyn,  118. 
Lynch,  Bishop,  of  Charleston,  138, 
156. 

M. 

Martyrs,  Japanese,  162. 

Mary  Angela,  Sister,  44 
Maryland,  23. 

Mason,  159. 

Matthew,  Rev.  Father,  154. 


Matthews,  Very  Rev.  Father,  43. 

McCloskey,  Cardinal,  completed  the 
work  on  the  cathedral,  136. 

McElroy,  Father,  S.  J.,  171. 

McGee,  Thomas  D’Arcy,  106. 

McNally,  Bishop,  of  Clogher,  Ire¬ 
land,  133  ;  letter  to,  133. 

McNeirny,  Rev.  Francis,  123,  160. 

Melanchthon,  39. 

“  Metropolitan  Record,”  Archbishop 
Hughes  replies  to  his  critics  on  the 
temporal  power,  139. 

Metternich,  66. 

Mexico,  a  proposed  visit  to,  54. 

Mob,  “  Native  American,”  95. 

Mobs,  “  Know-Nothing,”  122. 

Mount  Saint  Mary,  description,  24 ; 
the  college  burned  down  in  1824, 
Mr.  Hughes  collecting  funds  for  a 
new  college,  the  new  college  built 
in  1826,  31. 

Moylan,  Stephen,  115. 

Mulledy,  Rev.  Father,  a  Jesuit,  55. 

Mulloch,  Bishop,  127. 

Murray,  Rev.  Nicholas,  109. 


N. 

Napoleon  III.,  160. 

“  Nation,”  The  New  York,  106. 
Nugent,  Marshal,  66.  ; 

O. 

O’Connell,  Daniel,  14,  154. 

O’Conor,  Charles,  a  distinguished 
lawyer,  Bishop  Hughes  writes  to 
him  on  the  Pope’s  temporal  power  ? 
138. 

O’Donnell,  Spanish  statesman,  163. 
Orangemen,  18. 

Oxford,  New  York,  91. 4 


INDEX. 


l8l 


P. 

Penal  laws,  description  of  some  of 
them,  15 ;  a  story  told  by  John 
Hughes  concerning  them,  18. 

Pius  IX.,  founds  the  American  Col¬ 
lege  at  Rome,  135;  letter  to  the 
Bishops  of  the  United  States  in 
1855,  135- 

Poems,  142. 

Politics  and  religion,  71. 

Population,  Catholic,  in  New  York 
in  1838,  58. 

Power,  Rev.  Dr.,  47. 

Preaching,  his  style  described,  140. 

Press,  Propaganda,  publishes  Bishop 
Hughes’s  pastoral  letter  on  the 
temporal  power,  138. 

“Press,  The  Catholic,0  article  in 
“The  Metropolitan  Record,”  30. 

Preston,  Rev.  Thomas  S.,  123. 

“  Protestant,”  a  newspaper,  44. 

Public  School  Society,  remonstrance 
of,  75»  *34- 

Q- 

Quinn,  Rev.  William,  171. 

R. 

Reese,  Dr.,  75. 

Ribbonmen,  a  secret  organization, 
their  character,  14. 

Richelieu,  Cardinal,  173. 

Richmond,  157. 

Rodrigue,  Mrs.,  letter  to,  163. 

“  Roman  Question,”  The,  becomes 
unusually  interesting,  136. 

S. 

School  question,  67  ;  Bishop  Hughes 
addresses  the  Public  Schopl  So¬ 


ciety  os  the,  68;  petition  to  the 
Common  Council  for  a  share  of  the 
school  fund  rejected,  71 ;  an  ad¬ 
dress  of  the  Roman  Catholics  to 
the  fellow-citizens  on  the,  72,  73 ; 
The  Public  School  Society  strongly 
opposes  the  bishop’s  efforts,  75; 
the  Protestant  churches  oppose 
and  attack  the  Catholic  petition, 
76  ;  brought  before  the  Senate  at 
Albany,  78 ;  the  Press  helped  the 
Public  School  Society,  79. 

Sedgwick,  Theodore,  75. 

Seton,  Mother,  103. 

Seward,  sympathy  with  Bishop 
Hughes,  81 ;  advocates  denomina¬ 
tional  schools,  85;  his  message  to 
the  legislature  in  1842,  S5,  157, 

Seymour,  Horatio,  109. 

Sisters  of  Charity,  100. 

“Slave,  The,”  a  poem,  142. 

Slavery,  negro,  opposed  by  Bishop 
Hughes,  154. 

Slidell,  159. 

Smith,  Dr.,  168. 

“  Soft-Shell  ”  democrats,  125. 

Spring,  Dr.,  75. 

Stenger,  Rev.  Joseph  W.,  165. 

St.  John’s  Orphan  Asylum,  40. 

St.  Joseph’s  Church,  New  York,  91. 

St.  Louis’  Church,  Buffalo,  90. 

St.  Michael’s  Church,  Philadelphia, 
95- 

St.  Peter’s  debt,  116. 

Synod,  first,  in  New  York,  89. 


T. 

Temporal  power  of  the  Pope,  107, 
108  ;  plotting  against  the,  T36. 
Teresa,  Church  of  St.,  169. 
Thouvenel,  French  statesman,  i6q 


182 


INDEX. 


Timon,  Bishop,  90. 

Tract  society,  Father  Hughes  tries 
to  found,  38. 

Tracy,  Father,  133. 

Trustee  system,  34 ;  letter  of  Father 
Hughes  to  Father  Brute  on  the, 
36 ;  Bishop  Conwell  makes  an 
illegal  surrender  to  the  trustees, 
37  ;  flourishes  in  New  York,  59  ; 
conflict  between  the  trustees  and 
Father  Hughes,  60,  et  seq. 

Trustees  of  St.  Mary’s  Church  make 
trouble,  Father  Hughes  builds  a 
new  church,  calls  it  St.  John’s 
and  thus  he  completely  conquers 
the  trustees,  47. 

Trustees  of  St.  Peter’s  mismanage 
the  property,  116. 

iV 

U. 

Umil&,  ancient  convent  of,  pur¬ 
chased  by  the  Pope  for  the  Amer¬ 
ican  College,  135. 

United  States,  Irishmen  eager  to 


become  citizens  of,  22  ;  refuses  to 
interfere  with  ecclesiastical  juris¬ 
diction,  37. 

University,  Catholic,  of  Dublin,  164. 


V. 

Vauxhall  garden,  105. 

Victor  Emmanuel,  King,  136. 
Vincennes,  27. 

W. 

Weed,  Thurlow,  92. 

Wood,  Archbishop,  165. 

%  '  * 

X. 

Xavier,  Francis,  St.,  162. 

Y. 

“  Young  Ireland,0  129. 


’i'W  fid 


.t;, 

iVv. 


"  '  <  <  . 

v .  v  "  .  '  ,-i 

■  ■  -  ■  ■ 

i  ...  .V  V  -Vy.  ■  ■  -4 

-V  '  ;v v 

•  '  ,  •  11 


■  •'  v-  ' 


i 


IIW 

'  -  1  •  •  .  v 


‘  i/  ' 


•  (■ 


»  ,  >  .  -  ,j  •  •>.  •  •  •  ' 

v,-v. 

. 

.  >.  '  .  , 

.  '•  f  ' 

v  *  I  VJ  1  '  "  .  v':' 

,  .  -  f.‘  * : ; 

1 

,  '  ■  ;  I  •  ■  vA  >  •  ■■■'  1  , 

K'  •  •  > 


t.  /  , 


•  *  t«  : 


\ 

■  '  ' 


x  ,  *  *  *1 

?.? t  Uw?  ■( ' 


f  ....... 


t:  : 


K  k 


■  •*  i 


:  *> 
Vs  •  ' 


V  • 

.  J  ,  V’-'-  ■»  ■ 

.  , .  ■  > 

. 

,  »S*  »  ■ 

'  ■*>  •, 

J  '  '  .  . 

4 

;!  .  1  .  ’ 

,  .  ..  11  •  ■  1  •• 

0;' 

'  ‘  -/v 

!r  ,•  ■  $  ■  •. 

. v.  -  .  ’ vV'Vi  v''X 

’  ’<  ...  ,-i,  I  vS'1  ,  t 

'  —  1  •.  ••  v ,  .'/.‘I’.'.'J 

)■  V.i  •  »  \  : 

'  ,  .  i  '  '-V ...  '  .  V 

\  .'V.  ■  V  V'“. 

t  *  .  1  '  5  ■  ■ 

\ 


/ 


\ 


. 


'  / 


'  ..  y. 

: 

■  '  ' 

.  i';,  •  v 


-i 


* 


•  A 


v  : 


: :  •  .•  • 

'  '■  1  • »  .■  -  •* 

•  V  •  '  . /  J  r  ■ 

.  ,  /  '  .v-"  • 

,  . 

•  > 


-,-i  • .  .  , 

,  r  \ 

■  ■  •  1  .  ,  ..  \ 

’  1  •  1 


...  1  ,i  1 


•  , .  .  ■  ■  > 


i 


I 


MW  1 8  tw 


BX  4705  *  H 7 9  B7  19 IX 

B  it  3  n  n  i*  H  ©  n  r  y  A  *t  n  3  r  1 3  s  i  *..i  &  ? 
1837-1921 ♦ 

M o s lv  R 0 vere n ci  Johi  i  H u £.« 1 1 © ” 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIE,™- 

CHESTNUT  HILL.  MA  02167 


